"The World Cup is Not for Sale": Why FIFA Withdrew Its Investor Plan

The FIFA World Cup, one of the largest sporting events globally, considered opening part of its value to private investors, channeling the substantial funds raised to promote soccer worldwide.

The "FIFA Forward Enterprise" (FFE) initiative proposed by the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) was ostensibly a grand fundraising plan aimed at reducing global soccer disparities.

However, just days after the announcement, President Gianni Infantino withdrew the plan.

The 55 associations of the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) resolved to boycott all FIFA tournaments unless the proposal was withdrawn. The Confederation of North, Central America and Caribbean Association Football (Concacaf) also rejected the plan with its 41 member associations, and the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) expressed strong dissatisfaction due to insufficient consultation.

Even within FIFA, close aides to the president and top executives openly opposed the plan, leading to a near-split in the global soccer community.

Ultimately, President Infantino stated that after listening to various opinions, the plan had created divisions contrary to its original purpose, and declared, "We will not proceed with the proposal."

A New Company Valued at $20 Billion

FIFA's plan was to consolidate commercial activities such as broadcasting rights, sponsorships, tickets, and licensing, along with tournament operations including the World Cup, into a newly established subsidiary, FFE.

FIFA explained that it would own and control FFE, retaining ultimate authority over competition rules, international match schedules, tournament formats, and host locations.

The plan was to initially value FFE at $20 billion, allowing a small, non-controlling stake to be acquired by long-term investors to raise up to $4.2 billion.

This structure did not involve selling FIFA itself to investors but accepting investments into a subsidiary owned by FIFA.

Among the leading candidates to spearhead the new company's investor group was Thrive Eternal, an investment firm associated with Joshua Kushner, with involvement from JP Morgan as well.

FIFA claimed that external investors would not directly influence tournament operations or soccer governance, incorporating only commercial expertise and capital.

Up to $40 Million in Funding for Member Associations

A major pillar of the plan was expanding development funding to FIFA member associations.

FIFA officially has 211 member associations. The original article incorrectly stated 221.

The plan proposed that each member association could receive $20 million in FIFA Forward development funds over four years from 2027 to 2030.

Additionally, associations could apply for a one-time grant of up to $20 million through the newly planned "FIFA Fast Forward Programme" for special projects like stadiums, national training centers, and long-term infrastructure.

This meant that associations meeting the conditions could potentially access up to $40 million in combined regular and optional special funding.

FIFA explained that this would significantly increase investments in women's soccer, youth development, domestic tournaments, coach training, national teams, and sports facilities.

A Certain Rationality in the Redistribution Ideology

It cannot be said that this plan was solely aimed at profit from the start.

There is a massive economic disparity in the global soccer world.

While major European associations and clubs earn enormous profits from broadcasting rights, sponsorships, and ticket sales, countries with smaller populations or weaker sports foundations often struggle to fund national team tours, domestic league operations, or activities for women's and youth teams.

In many countries, FIFA's distributions support stadium construction or renovation, coach training, women's soccer promotion, and providing playing opportunities for children.

In this sense, the idea of distributing the commercial success of the World Cup globally and investing heavily in economically weaker associations does not contradict FIFA's mission.

Public discussions on social media also noted that while $20 million might be a small amount for major European associations, it could transform the sporting environment for associations in Oceania or the Caribbean.

The issue was not the purpose of the funding but whether it was necessary to hand over the future value of the World Cup to private investors to obtain that funding.

"Minority Stakes" Still Create Pressure for Profits

FIFA repeatedly stated that investors would acquire only minority stakes, not transfer control.

However, private investment firms seek to recover their invested capital and increase the value of their holdings.

Even without holding a majority of voting rights, they may express opinions on expanding revenues by influencing the number of tournaments, participating countries, ticket prices, sponsorship structures, broadcasting contracts, match durations, and hosting regions.

Even if FIFA retains formal decision-making authority, if it becomes necessary to maintain the new company's corporate value and generate expected returns for investors, the priorities in tournament operations could change.

Critics particularly took issue with the fact that this plan was not a temporary loan but a sale of equity tied to future commercial profits.

While $4.2 billion is a huge sum now, if the World Cup's value continues to grow over the coming decades, the profits investors could gain would also increase.

Is it truly in the best interest of member associations to segment future revenues from the most valuable asset in soccer in exchange for short-term funds? A clear examination was needed.

The Biggest Issue Was the Lack of Transparency in Procedures

The decisive factor in the backlash was not just the issue of "what is being sold."

It was the procedural questions of "who created the plan, when, how, and which bodies reviewed it."

Concacaf criticized the lack of formal procedures surrounding the proposal, the artificially short deadline for decisions, and the absence of review or approval by FIFA's proper governing bodies.

After a meeting of its 41 associations, Concacaf rejected the plan and urged FIFA to explore alternative ways to increase development funds by utilizing its reserves.

The AFC also expressed disappointment that it was not consulted on such a significant initiative and that the plan was announced before it could be reviewed through formal governance procedures.

FIFA explained that the plan was merely a starting point for discussions and would not be implemented without the approval of a majority of member associations and the FIFA Council.

However, from the opposition's perspective, it seemed as though a concrete proposal, including corporate value, funding amounts, investment candidates, and distribution to member associations, was suddenly presented, demanding a quick decision.

FIFA's Rebuttal Deepened Distrust

Amid growing global criticism, FIFA initially showed a stance of continuing to explain the plan rather than withdrawing it.

FIFA claimed that planned discussions were hindered by incorrect media reports, emphasizing, "No one is trying to sell soccer."

It also explained that no single continental federation could represent the views of all 211 associations worldwide, and each association had the right to consider the proposal and decide its own future.

However, this rebuttal only intensified distrust rather than quelling criticism.

The opposition was not merely seeking corrections to media reports. They wanted details to assess the long-term impact, such as the specific rights investors would gain, investment periods, profit distribution, conditions for resale of stakes, board composition, and methods to prevent conflicts of interest.

On social media, questions arose like, "Isn't it just rephrasing to say it's not a sale?" and "If it's truly at the consultation stage, why are investment candidates and corporate value already decided?"

UEFA's Total Boycott Threat

The decisive blow to the plan came from UEFA.

UEFA and its 55 member associations held an emergency meeting and unanimously rejected FIFA's proposal.

Furthermore, they declared that European national teams would not participate in FIFA-hosted tournaments until the plan was completely withdrawn and a binding guarantee was provided that FIFA governance and tournaments would not be opened to private ownership in the future.

This was not merely a protest statement.

Europe is home to globally popular and competitive national teams like Spain, France, England, Germany, Italy, and Portugal.

If these countries were to withdraw from the World Cup, it would severely impact not only the competitive value of the tournament but also broadcasting rights, sponsorship contracts, ticket sales, and viewership.

For private investors, the value of a World Cup without the participation of major European countries would significantly decrease.

UEFA argued that the World Cup is not private property that FIFA executives can freely sell, but an asset held in trust by the entire soccer community for future generations.

Rebellion from Within FIFA

More than external opposition, the criticism from within FIFA dealt a blow to President Infantino.

Carlos Cordeiro, a senior advisor to President Infantino, resigned in opposition to the plan.

Cordeiro, with experience in the financial industry, questioned the wisdom of FIFA selling a permanent stake in its most valuable asset to raise funds, viewing it as unfavorable for both member associations and soccer's long-term future.

FIFA's Chief Operating Officer Kevin Lamour also criticized the plan, stating that staff were not adequately informed.

He described the initiative as effectively "a plan by one person," arguing not only for its cessation but also for soccer's political leaders to reconsider FIFA's leadership structure.

It is unusual for individuals close to the president or current top executives to openly criticize an organization's proposal.

At this stage, the issue extended beyond the pros and cons of introducing private funding to questions about the concentration of power in President Infantino and whether FIFA's internal governance functions were operating properly.

Concerns Over Kushner's Presence and Political Connections

The issue of investor candidates and political connections further intensified distrust surrounding the plan.

Thrive Eternal, the investment firm FIFA announced as the central candidate for the investor group, is associated with Joshua Kushner.

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

The close relationship between President Infantino and Trump has been repeatedly highlighted since the lead-up to the 2026 World Cup.

Of course, the mere fact that an investment firm is related to a politician's family does not automatically imply wrongdoing. FIFA stated that investors would be selected based on criteria such as long-term commitment, governance, and strategic alignment.

Nevertheless, the possibility of an investment firm related to a political power figure participating in the commercial value of the world's largest soccer tournament raised concerns about conflicts of interest and the fairness of investor selection.

On social media, reactions included questions like, "Was there a competitive bidding process?" "Why is this company the central candidate?" and "Can it be guaranteed that political connections won't influence tournament operations?"

Five Prominent Reactions on Social Media

Reviewing posts on Reddit and X, reactions mainly fell into five categories. However, social media posts are not surveys and do not represent the entire soccer fanbase.

1. "Don't Commercialize Soccer Any Further"

The most common reaction was opposition to treating the World Cup like an investment product.

Amid ongoing expansion of tournament scale, rising ticket prices, increased sponsorship slots, and commercial presentations, there were concerns that private investor involvement would further accelerate profit-driven actions.

The question was whether FIFA alone should be allowed to sell off the value created by fans, players, and national teams over many years to external parties.

2. "Not Just Statements, Boycotts Are Necessary"

Even before UEFA decided on a total boycott, many on social media believed that statements and protest letters alone would not stop FIFA.

The view was that only by showing the possibility of major European national teams refusing to participate in tournaments could realistic pressure be applied to FIFA and investors.

After the withdrawal was reported, reactions praising UEFA's hardline stance for stopping the plan spread.

3. "Is the Funding for Member Associations a Political Ploy?"

The offer of up to $40 million in funding to each association was criticized as a political maneuver to gain support for the plan rather than genuine development aid.

Particularly, the combination of a short review deadline and a large funding offer raised concerns that associations might prioritize immediate funds over long-term risks.

On the other hand, FIFA explained that the regular $20 million in development funds would be distributed regardless of whether individual associations supported the plan.

4. "The Funding Is Truly Needed by Small Associations"

Not all reactions were critical.

For economically weaker associations, tens of millions of dollars could transform environments for national teams, domestic leagues, women's soccer, stadiums, and youth development.

There was also the opinion that the redistribution to the world should not be denied solely from the perspective of wealthy European associations.

Even after rejecting the plan, there is a need to present alternative ways to increase funding for financially weak countries.

5. "The Issue Is FIFA's Decision-Making, Not the Plan"

Many reactions focused on the lack of adequate explanation to continental federations and FIFA staff, more so than the FFE mechanism itself.

Why was a plan with specific details on investor candidates, corporate value, and funding amounts announced without going through normal governance procedures?

Even if the plan is withdrawn, there is concern that a similar proposal might be reintroduced under a different name unless the decision-making process is scrutinized.

FIFA Changed Its Stance in a Matter of Hours