FIFA World Cup stake sale draws global backlash

PARIS, France — CONCACAF joined UEFA on Wednesday, July 29, in criticizing FIFA’s controversial plan to sell minority stakes in the business operations of the World Cup and its other competitions through a new semi-private subsidiary.

World football’s governing body said Tuesday, July 28, that it would retain a majority share in FIFA Forward Enterprise, or FFE, while seeking to raise up to USD 4.2 billion later this year by “carefully selecting long-term investors who will purchase minority, non-controlling interests.”

The planned capital raise is based on an implied equity valuation of USD 20 billion, with FIFA proposing to sell stakes of up to 20% to outside investors.

FIFA issued its statement shortly after The Times and the Financial Times published reports based on information leaked by two sources familiar with the proposal.

The Times reported that FIFA President Gianni Infantino, 56, could benefit financially from the arrangement by becoming commissioner of FFE after a possible next term as FIFA president ends in 2031.

FIFA denied that such an appointment had been discussed.

The newspaper also reported that talks had begun with financial advisers and prospective investors.

Potential investors identified in reports included Thrive Eternal, an investment vehicle launched by Joshua Kushner’s Thrive Capital.

Joshua Kushner is the brother of Jared Kushner, who is the son-in-law of U.S. President Donald Trump.

JPMorgan Chase is working with FIFA to attract outside investors.

The U.S. bank previously arranged financing for the failed European Super League, a proposed breakaway competition that collapsed in 2021 after widespread opposition from supporters, governing bodies, and national governments.

UEFA, which has repeatedly clashed with Infantino’s administration, responded to the reports before FIFA formally announced the proposal.

“This crosses a line that football’s governing institutions should never cross. UEFA takes it extremely seriously,” UEFA said.

“The soul and governance of football are not assets to trade — especially with zero transparency as to who gains financially. None of us are the owners of football. It is not FIFA’s to sell.”

European Union Sports Commissioner Glenn Micallef also rejected the plan.

“Hands off our game,” Micallef posted on X.

CONCACAF, which governs football in North America, Central America, and the Caribbean, said it had learned about the proposal through media reports and was “deeply concerned by the lack of due process.”

“We share the disappointment of many within our region and the game that this level of detail has been designed and shared publicly before any discussion with the relevant governance bodies and stakeholders has taken place,” CONCACAF added.

The proposal must be approved by the FIFA Council and supported by a majority of FIFA’s 211 member associations.

Some reports described the council as a 38-member body, although FIFA’s official organizational page lists 37 members: the president, eight vice presidents, and 28 other members.

FIFA said it planned to present the proposal to the council soon.

The governing body insisted it “would retain sole control of FFE and exclusive authority over football governance, competitions, match calendar, and all regulatory and sporting decisions.”

FIFA said it would maintain that control through majority representation on the subsidiary’s board.

Outside investors would hold only minority, non-controlling interests and would not be given authority over sporting or regulatory decisions.

FIFA said each of its 211 member associations would be allowed to access up to USD 20 million in one-off capital through an optional FIFA Fast Forward Programme.

That amount is equivalent to 0.1% of FFE’s projected USD 20 billion valuation and could represent a significant source of funding for FIFA’s smaller or less wealthy member associations.

The money could be used for stadiums, national training centers, coaching, national teams, competitions, grassroots football, infrastructure, and the women’s game.

FIFA said the proposed investments, combined with its existing programs, could increase its total planned development funding to more than USD 10 billion during the next four years.

British Prime Minister Andy Burnham, an Everton supporter, also criticized the plan.

“Football does not belong to investors. It belongs to the people who fill the stands and who stand on the touchline week in, week out, rain or shine,” Burnham wrote on social media.

“The World Cup is not a product. It is the greatest competition in world sport, and it was never anyone’s to sell.”

‘Expanding to 64 teams’

In June, before the World Cup, FIFA projected record 2026 revenue exceeding EUR 7 billion, or about USD 8 billion.

FIFA records income from its competitions as part of its revenue for the full financial year.

The 2026 tournament in the United States, Canada, and Mexico was the first men’s World Cup to feature 48 teams, up from the 32-team format used from 1998 through 2022.

During the tournament, Infantino raised the possibility of another expansion for the centennial World Cup in 2030.

“We have had discussions about expanding to 64 teams,” Infantino said.

The Times quoted an unnamed “senior football figure” who described the FFE proposal as “potentially much worse than the European Super League” because it could affect every level of football worldwide.

The latest proposal is not Infantino’s first attempt to introduce large-scale private investment into FIFA competitions.

In 2019, a FIFA stakeholders’ committee rejected an Infantino-backed plan involving USD 25 billion in private investment for an expanded Club World Cup.

Reported potential backers of that proposal included Japan’s SoftBank and Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund.

FIFA nevertheless expanded the Club World Cup from seven teams to 32 clubs in 2025.

The Times said the creation of FFE could place additional commercial pressure on FIFA to enlarge the World Cup and Club World Cup or stage them more frequently.

“It could lead to pressure for both events to be further expanded or played more regularly than the present once every four years,” the newspaper wrote.

FIFA has previously encountered financial and governance problems involving arrangements that transferred commercial operations to private partners.

International Sport and Leisure, or ISL, which negotiated World Cup rights agreements, collapsed in 2001.

Estimates of FIFA’s losses from the collapse ranged from USD 30 million to USD 115 million.