FIFA announced plans Tuesday to sell a minority stake in a new commercial subsidiary that would control the World Cup and its other major competitions to private investors, in a proposal that would raise up to $4.2 billion and potentially set FIFA president Gianni Infantino on course to earn as much as $64 million a year running the new entity.
The announcement drew immediate and fierce condemnation from European football’s governing body UEFA, which called it a betrayal of the game’s fundamental principles, and from political figures including British Prime Minister Andy Burnham.
What We Know So Far
Under the plan, FIFA would create a new entity called FIFA Forward Enterprise, or FFE, to oversee all commercial and event operations including the World Cup, Club World Cup, and associated competitions. FIFA would retain majority control of FFE but sell up to 21 percent of the subsidiary to private investors, Reuters confirmed.
Thrive Eternal, a long-term investment vehicle founded by Joshua Kushner, is expected to lead the proposed investor group, FIFA confirmed. Kushner, 41, is the brother of Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law. Jared Kushner is not a potential investor, a source told Reuters. The Trump administration was reportedly aware of Infantino’s plan, according to the Times of London.
Apollo Sports Capital, the long-term sports investment vehicle set up by private equity firm Apollo Global Management, is another likely backer, the Athletic reported.
FIFA said it is working with JPMorgan as its chief financial adviser on the project. Former Liberty Media chief executive Greg Maffei and Rome-based consultancy OpenEconomics are also serving as advisers. Former Walt Disney CEO Bob Iger serves as an adviser to Thrive Eternal.
The $4.2 billion raised from the minority stake sale would be immediately released to FIFA’s 211 member associations through a new funding stream called the FIFA Fast-Forward Programme. Each member association would be allowed to draw an optional $20 million for special projects, infrastructure, coaching, national teams, and grassroots and women’s football. Regular Forward Programme grants would also increase from $8 million to $20 million per nation in the next four-year cycle, rising to $24 million by 2035 to 2038, the New York Times confirmed.
FIFA said outside investors would have no operational role in FFE and would not have any say in football governance, competition rules, the match calendar, or regulatory decisions.
“Outside investors will have only a minority stake in FFE and will not play any operational role,” FIFA said. “For FIFA, nothing changes.”
FIFA, a not-for-profit organization, generated approximately $15 billion in revenue during the 2022 to 2026 World Cup cycle, Reuters confirmed, beating its $13 billion target and doubling the amount earned in the previous cycle.
The Times of London reported that Infantino would run FFE as its commissioner after his FIFA presidency ends in 2031 with a salary comparable to NFL commissioner Roger Goodell’s reported $64 million annually, a tenfold increase from his current earnings. When asked about that claim, a FIFA spokesperson told the Athletic that the matter had never been formally discussed but that the FIFA president “must have a leading role in this entity.”
Infantino framed the proposal in terms of global equity.
“Football is the world’s most popular sport and an extraordinary engine of human and social development,” Infantino said in a statement. “Our job is to make sure the rest of football grows with it. This is about the democratisation of football worldwide.”
The proposal will be presented to FIFA’s 211 member associations and its 37-member council, which would make the final decision on whether it proceeds.
What UEFA And Others Are Saying
UEFA responded with a statement of unusual severity.
“This crosses a line that football’s governing institutions should never cross,” 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.”
Relations between UEFA and FIFA have deteriorated significantly in recent years. UEFA president Aleksander Ceferin refused to attend the 2026 World Cup final following disagreements over disciplinary procedures, refereeing logistics, and match operations.
British Prime Minister Andy Burnham was equally blunt.
“The World Cup is not a product,” Burnham wrote on X. “It is the greatest competition in world sport, and it was never anyone’s to sell. Dress the deal up however you like. Once you have sold a piece of it, you have sold out. Football belongs to the fans. It always has, and it always will.”
U.S. Congressman Jamie Raskin, a Democrat from Maryland who has requested Infantino appear before the House Judiciary Committee over FIFA’s ties to the Trump administration, said: “Soccer fans were already priced out of the World Cup by FIFA’s corrupt price gouging before. More oligarch corruption just means more corporate tarnishing of the beautiful game.”
Richard Sheehan, a finance professor at the University of Notre Dame who studies the economics of sport, called the proposal a money grab.
“From the perspective of a not-for-profit organization, theoretically raising money to make soccer available to everyone, this move is a farce,” Sheehan said.
Not all observers were opposed. Some pointed out that similar commercial structures have been created by the French and Spanish football leagues, and that the German and Italian leagues have debated comparable moves. Formula One and golf’s PGA Tour have pursued equivalent strategies with private equity.
Why This Matters
The FIFA proposal represents the most significant attempt to commercialize the governance structure of world football since the sport’s modern administrative framework was established.
The World Cup is the most-watched sporting event on earth. Its commercial value, concentrated in broadcasting rights and sponsorship, generates revenue that dwarfs most other sporting competitions. Placing a minority stake in the entity that controls that revenue in the hands of private investors fundamentally changes the incentive structure that governs decisions about the tournament’s format, frequency, and accessibility.
Critics, led by UEFA, argue that private investors motivated by returns will inevitably push for a larger World Cup, more frequent editions, and expanded commercial exploitation of the event in ways that benefit shareholders rather than the global development of the sport. A 64-team World Cup and a more frequent or enlarged Club World Cup are widely regarded as likely outcomes if FFE is approved and private investors seek to maximize the value of their stake.
The involvement of Joshua Kushner also raises questions that go beyond the technical merits of the proposal. His brother Jared’s central role in securing the 2026 World Cup for the United States and in particular for MetLife Stadium in New Jersey, combined with Infantino’s close relationship with President Trump during the tournament, places the FFE investor structure at the intersection of sports governance and American political connections in ways that the Athletic noted have already raised eyebrows across the global game.
This is not Infantino’s first attempt to bring external investment into FIFA’s operations. A $25 billion proposal in 2018 involving SoftBank and Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund fell apart due to lack of support. A FIFA streaming service discussed with former U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin also never materialized.
What Happens Next
The proposal will be formally presented to FIFA’s 211 member associations and its 37-member council. A majority of member associations must approve it for the plan to proceed.
FIFA’s pitch to member associations will center on the expanded development funding the capital raise would unlock. For smaller and developing football nations that rely heavily on FIFA grants for most of their income, the prospect of accessing $20 million in one-off capital funding for infrastructure and development projects will make the proposal genuinely attractive, regardless of UEFA’s objections.
Whether UEFA’s fierce opposition translates into enough resistance among member associations to block the plan, or whether the development funding offer wins enough votes to carry the proposal, will determine whether Infantino’s most ambitious commercial initiative since taking office becomes reality or joins his earlier investment proposals as another idea that failed to gain sufficient support.
Sources: The New York Times; Reuters; Yahoo Sports
