The proposal could raise billions for FIFA and its 211 member federations. It also opens a fight over who should profit from the World Cup — and who gets to decide.
FIFA plans to create a $20 billion subsidiary to run the World Cup and related events, then sell up to a 20% stake to outside investors. Announced Tuesday in Geneva, the plan could raise up to $4.2 billion, turning FIFA’s “World Cup engine” into a minority-investor vehicle — and UEFA is furious about the plan.
The clash matters because the World Cup is not just a tournament. It is FIFA’s financial core, a global political stage and the main funding source for national federations that now must decide whether private money belongs inside football’s most valuable property.
A new company for FIFA’s crown jewel
FIFA says the proposed commercial subsidiary would be called FIFA Forward Enterprise, or FFE. It would handle commercial operations for competitions including the World Cup and Club World Cup, while FIFA says it would keep control of sporting decisions, governance, regulation and the match calendar.
According to the Associated Press, FIFA said the new entity would be based on an initial equity valuation of $20 billion. FIFA’s plan is to sell minority, non-controlling interests to long-term investors, raising up to $4.2 billion later this year.
Reuters reported that FIFA plans to create the $20 billion subsidiary to run the World Cup and other events and offer stakes of up to 20%. The Financial Times has also reported that FIFA is planning to sell roughly a 20% stake in a new commercial entity valued at about $20 billion.
That structure is the key point: FIFA is not proposing to sell the World Cup outright. It is proposing to sell a slice of the commercial machine around it.
Why FIFA wants the money
FIFA’s pitch is that the money would be pushed back into global football. The organization says the plan could support development programs and give its 211 national member federations access to larger funding streams.
FIFA President Gianni Infantino described the project as a way to “unleash the commercial potential and opportunity that FIFA has,” according to the AP. FIFA’s statement framed it as part of a wider “democratization of football worldwide.”
The most direct incentive for members is cash. FIFA said member federations could get access to up to $20 million in one-off capital. AP reported that FIFA’s proposed “FIFA Fast-Forward Program” would increase development funding from a currently promised $8 million per member in the 2027-30 cycle to $20 million, then $22 million and $24 million in later cycles through 2038.
That is a powerful argument inside FIFA, where many smaller federations depend heavily on central funding. For countries without major broadcast markets or deep commercial sponsorship bases, FIFA development money can shape infrastructure, coaching, women’s programs and youth pathways.
UEFA sees a red line
UEFA’s response was blunt. “It is not FIFA’s to sell,” the European governing body said in a statement cited by AP. “None of us are the owners of football.”
UEFA said it was taking reports of the project “extremely seriously” and urged national football associations to do the same. The group, which represents 55 FIFA member associations, said the proposal “crosses a line that football’s governing institutions should never cross.”
The heart of UEFA’s objection is not only money. It is control, transparency and principle. UEFA said “the soul and governance of football are not assets to trade — especially with zero transparency as to who gains financially.”
FIFA’s defense is that investors would get only minority, non-controlling interests. UEFA’s worry is that once private capital is attached to the commercial future of the World Cup, investors will expect growth, influence and returns — even if formal governance remains with FIFA.
The investor names add heat
AP reported that FIFA is working with J.P. Morgan and that intended investors include Thrive Eternal, launched by Joshua Kushner. Joshua Kushner is the brother of Jared Kushner, son-in-law of U.S. President Donald Trump.
That detail adds political sensitivity to a deal already likely to face scrutiny. The recently completed men’s World Cup, staged across the United States, Canada and Mexico, deepened the public ties between Trump and Infantino, AP reported, and those ties have fueled concern in parts of European football.
There is no indication in FIFA’s public framing that investor participation would affect sporting outcomes, tournament formats or regulatory decisions. FIFA says it would retain sole control over those areas.
Still, optics matter in football governance. A World Cup commercial vehicle backed by private investors would invite questions about who is selected, what return they expect, how information is shared and whether national federations can meaningfully scrutinize the arrangement before voting on it.
Members hold the real power
FIFA is a Swiss-based not-for-profit association made up of 211 national member federations. Any plan of this scale would need member approval, and FIFA says a consultation process has begun.
That consultation could become the decisive arena. FIFA can present the plan as a way to fund football outside Europe’s wealthiest leagues and associations. UEFA can counter that football’s global assets should not be packaged for private investors, however attractive the payout looks.
The politics are complicated. UEFA is influential, but it is not FIFA’s majority. Many federations in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, Oceania and parts of the Americas may judge the plan by what it delivers to their budgets rather than by European concerns about commercial purity.
The offer also lands at a time when FIFA has been expanding its competition footprint. The enlarged Club World Cup, a bigger men’s World Cup and increasingly aggressive global sponsorship strategy have all raised questions about calendar pressure, player workload and how much more football’s biggest events can be monetized.
A familiar Infantino gamble
This is not the first time Infantino has tried to bring private capital close to FIFA’s top assets. AP noted that in 2018 he pushed a separate $25 billion proposal with private backers, a plan that drew criticism over secrecy and did not move forward in its original form.
The new proposal is more formally framed, with a named commercial subsidiary and a development-funding pitch. But the central tension is similar: FIFA wants to convert global reach into upfront capital; critics want to know what football gives up in exchange.
The timing also helps explain the urgency. FIFA banked record World Cup income of about $12 billion from the 2026 tournament across the U.S., Canada and Mexico, according to AP. Matching that commercial high may be harder when Spain, Portugal and Morocco co-host the 2030 men’s edition.
That makes a $20 billion valuation appealing for FIFA, especially if investors believe the World Cup brand can keep growing. It also makes UEFA’s warning sharper: the more valuable the asset becomes, the more consequential any partial sale may be.
What remains unclear
The biggest unknown is the investor list. FIFA has said it will carefully select long-term investors, but UEFA’s transparency complaint points to a basic question: who would profit from the world’s most watched sporting event, and on what terms?
It is also unclear how much influence member federations would have over FFE after approval. FIFA says it would keep control. Critics will want to see documents, voting rights, board structure, dividend terms and exit rules before accepting that assurance.
The cleanest takeaway is that this is a fight over the future business model of world football. FIFA is offering more money and a larger commercial machine. UEFA is warning that the World Cup is not an asset class to be sliced up.
If members back Infantino, FIFA could bring private investors into the engine room of its biggest event. If resistance spreads beyond Europe, the proposal could become another reminder that in global football, the richest prize is also the hardest one to govern.
Leave a Reply