Asian football sides with UEFA and rejects FIFA's controversial World Cup plan
The Asian Football Confederation has openly opposed the way FIFA presented its project to bring private investors into the commercial management of its biggest competitions. The AFC's demand for a postponement and a complete legal, financial, ethical and governance review has significantly broadened the front against the proposal by FIFA President Gianni Infantino.
The Asian Football Confederation, which brings together 47 national associations, joined UEFA's strong opposition on 30 July 2026 to a plan under which FIFA would spin off the commercial business and organisational operations of its competitions into a new company open to minority private investment. AFC President Salman bin Ebrahim Al-Khalifa told the member associations in a letter that the confederation had not been consulted at any level before the project was publicly presented. He added that the AFC had not received a detailed governance, financial or legal analysis of the proposal and its possible consequences, which he described as "completely unacceptable". Such a tone is particularly significant because Salman is also FIFA's senior vice-president, while the AFC has generally supported Infantino's leadership in recent years. His distancing shows that the dispute is no longer merely a conflict between FIFA and European football.
At the centre of the dispute is the FIFA Forward Enterprise project, abbreviated as FFE, which FIFA officially presented on 28 July. According to the world governing body's explanation, it would be a company owned and controlled by FIFA, bringing together in one place the commercial activities connected with television and other media rights, sponsorships, ticket sales, licensing and the operational delivery of tournaments. FIFA envisages raising up to 4.2 billion US dollars by selling minority stakes to long-term investors, with an initial company valuation of 20 billion dollars. Under the current proposal, the investment consortium would be led by Thrive Eternal, a company linked to US investor Joshua Kushner, while J.P. Morgan has been engaged as financial adviser. FIFA stresses that private partners would hold only minority, non-controlling stakes and would not participate in sporting or regulatory decisions.
The AFC demands a postponement and a review of the entire project
In his letter to the member associations, Salman bin Ebrahim Al-Khalifa did not reject the possibility of new commercial models as such, but challenged the process through which the proposal reached the public and the national associations. In his words, an initiative of such scope cannot be adopted without the participation of the confederations, whose structures have formed the foundation of international football organisation for decades. He warned that unilateral moves by FIFA could undermine the principles of solidarity, cooperation and transparency on which the continental system is based. The AFC therefore demands that the project be considered through the appropriate legal and governance channels and that all relevant FIFA bodies be included in the process. Particular emphasis was placed on the need for a comprehensive assessment of the long-term consequences, including the relationship between FIFA's sporting mission and the interests of future shareholders.
The Asian confederation also challenged the deadline given to the national associations to state their position. According to letters and documents reported on by international media, the associations should decide by 19 September 2026 whether they wish to participate in a model that gives them access to additional one-off funding. The AFC considers a period of several weeks too short for a decision that could change the long-term management of the most valuable commercial rights in world football. Salman therefore requested an extension of the deadline and sufficient time for legal due diligence, a corporate governance review, discussion among the member associations and an assessment of possible risks. The letter also stressed that the entire process must be conducted in accordance with the FIFA Statutes and the highest ethical standards. It has not yet been officially confirmed whether FIFA will accept the request to extend the deadline.
What FIFA is offering the national associations
FIFA presents the proposal as a way to accelerate investment in football development outside the wealthiest markets. According to the official announcement, the current budget of the FIFA Forward programme provides eight million dollars per national association for the 2027 to 2030 cycle, while under the new model that amount would rise to 20 million dollars. For the 2031 to 2034 cycle, 22 million dollars is envisaged, and for the period from 2035 to 2038, 24 million dollars per member association. In addition, the new voluntary FIFA Fast Forward programme would give each of the 211 associations access to up to 20 million dollars in one-off capital for special projects. According to FIFA, the funds could be used for stadiums, national training centres, coach development, national teams, domestic competitions, grassroots football and women's football.
In practical terms, an association participating in the additional programme could have up to 40 million dollars available during the 2027-2030 cycle: 20 million from the regular development programme and up to 20 million in one-off funding. FIFA estimates that FFE, together with existing programmes, would enable more than ten billion dollars to be invested in football development over the next four years. Gianni Infantino describes the project as the democratisation of global revenue distribution, claiming that even the smallest and geographically most remote member associations would gain greater capacity to build infrastructure and develop the game. FIFA also states that all net proceeds from the new company's operations would be returned to football. Critics, however, warn that the amount of funding being offered could put strong pressure on smaller associations to support the model before they receive a complete picture of its legal and economic consequences.
UEFA warns that football is not an asset for sale
The Union of European Football Associations reacted immediately after the project was announced and accused FIFA of crossing a line that governing institutions should not cross. UEFA stated that "football is not FIFA's to sell" and demanded complete transparency about who would financially benefit from the new structure. The European organisation, which brings together 55 national associations, convened an emergency meeting of its members to coordinate their further response. According to reports by The Guardian, the options discussed included a boycott of future FIFA competitions, but no such measure had been officially adopted by 30 July. The fact that such steps were mentioned shows how badly trust between the two organisations has deteriorated.
UEFA's criticism also concerns the sequence in which decisions were made. European officials claim that the confederations, associations, clubs, leagues, players and supporters' organisations learned about the project too late or through the media, while they regard the financial incentive linked to a short deadline as an unacceptable substitute for debate. FIFA responds that neither the competitions nor governing authority are being sold, but rather a minority stake in a commercial subsidiary. The credibility of precisely that separation has become one of the key issues in the dispute.
Opposition has spread beyond Europe
Before the Asian president's strongly worded letter, concern had also been expressed by Concacaf, the confederation of North and Central America and the Caribbean. In an official statement, Concacaf said it had learned about the project from media reports and FIFA's subsequent announcement, even though the decision could affect the future of global football. The organisation stressed that every major change must be based on good governance, robust procedures and long-term stewardship in the interests of the sport. Such a position is particularly important after the 2026 World Cup in Canada, Mexico and the United States, within Concacaf's territory. The AFC's decision to join those criticisms has created an intercontinental bloc that can no longer be described as exclusively European resistance to Infantino's policies.
Nevertheless, the positions of the confederations do not automatically mean that every national association will vote in the same way. FIFA operates on the principle that each of its 211 members has one vote, regardless of market size, sporting performance or financial strength. According to the official explanation, FFE can be launched only with the support of a majority of the members and subsequent approval by the FIFA Council of the necessary regulatory changes. UEFA, the AFC and Concacaf together represent 143 associations, giving them considerable political weight, but individual members may adopt a different position from their continental bodies. It will therefore be decisive whether the confederations manage to maintain a common line and whether FIFA offers additional documents, safeguards and a longer period for analysis before the final decision.
Private capital and the question of control
FIFA insists that it would retain full control over FFE through a majority on its board and exclusive authority over rules, the calendar, competition formats and all sporting decisions. Under the official plan, private investors would have no operational role, no seat on the FIFA Council and no voting rights at the Congress. Their interest would be tied to the growth in the value of their stakes in a company managing the commercial rights to the most-watched football events. FIFA believes that such a structure separates commercial activities from the regulatory function and enables more professional revenue management. As an additional argument, it notes that other sports organisations have also created separate commercial subsidiaries or joint ventures.
Opponents respond that a minority position does not eliminate every influence of capital. Investors committing billions expect growth in value, so critics fear pressure for more matches, more expensive commercial packages and the directing of events towards the most profitable markets. FIFA explicitly claims that FFE would not decide on sporting formats, but the confederations are demanding firm legal guarantees. Questions remain open regarding the composition of the board, shareholders' rights, the resale of stakes, conflicts of interest and oversight of revenue distribution.
Thrive Eternal, J.P. Morgan and a sensitive political context
According to FIFA's announcement, the investor group would be led by Thrive Eternal, a company run by Joshua Kushner. Greg Maffei, the former head of Liberty Media, is also involved in preparing the project, while J.P. Morgan and OpenEconomics are working on the financial structure. FIFA wants a geographically diverse group of long-term partners, but the final composition of the consortium, ownership agreements and investors' rights have not yet been made public. The absence of that documentation is one of the main reasons the AFC is demanding a postponement.
The Kushner surname has increased the political sensitivity of the project because Joshua Kushner is the brother of Jared Kushner, the son-in-law of US President Donald Trump, with whom Infantino has a highly visible relationship. That family connection is not in itself evidence of wrongdoing, nor has any role of the US administration in FFE been confirmed. Critics nevertheless demand particularly strict rules on transparency and the avoidance of conflicts of interest. FIFA responds that the investors would not invest in the regulatory body, but in a separate subsidiary, and that they would be selected according to long-term and governance criteria.
The return of a dispute that first erupted in 2018
This is not the first time Infantino has attempted to open FIFA's biggest competitions to large-scale external capital. In 2018, a package worth about 25 billion dollars was considered, linked to a consortium led by Japan's SoftBank and involving an expanded Club World Cup and a new global national-team competition. The project collapsed after strong opposition and questions about transparency, investor ownership and the impact on the existing calendar. The current proposal differs in that FIFA wants a permanent commercial subsidiary and explicitly promises to retain regulatory control. Nevertheless, opponents see it as a continuation of the same strategy: converting the future revenues of the biggest tournaments into capital that can be raised and distributed immediately.
The new plan comes after the 2026 World Cup, the first with 48 national teams. FIFA described the tournament as the most successful in history and said that almost 16 million people visited the stadiums and fan festivals. Such reach increases the value of the rights that would be consolidated within FFE. For FIFA, it is an opportunity to finance faster development, while for critics it is one more reason not to make rushed decisions about the future of those rights.
The AFC could change the balance of power within FIFA
The political importance of the Asian move is greater than the number of its member associations. The AFC encompasses associations with very different levels of economic strength, from Western and Eastern Asia to Australia. Some may regard the additional funds as a historic opportunity, while others prioritise control over future revenues. Salman is attempting to unite those interests by demanding that no decision be made before a complete analysis. In doing so, the AFC is not closing the door to negotiations, but considers the current process insufficiently legitimate.
For Gianni Infantino, this is a serious political blow ahead of a new phase of decision-making within FIFA. The support of a large number of small and medium-sized associations has been crucial to his power, and development programmes are one of the main elements of his relationship with the members. If the AFC remains united with UEFA and Concacaf, FIFA will find it difficult to continue the project without additional concessions, the publication of more detailed agreements and the formal inclusion of the confederations. If the Asian members split, the financial offer could weaken the common front and allow the project to pass despite the public opposition of their leaders. The next steps will therefore show whether the AFC's letter is the beginning of a genuine institutional blockade or pressure aimed at securing a more favourable and transparent model.
As of 30 July, FIFA had not withdrawn the proposal and continued to describe it as a consultation process rather than a final decision. The AFC is requesting more time, UEFA is coordinating the response of its members, Concacaf insists on proper procedure, and the national associations are assessing the balance between the promised investment and the long-term risks. The debate will not be limited to the question of whether private capital can increase revenues. At its centre will be the broader question: who is entitled to decide on the commercial future of the World Cup, and under what rules must the interests of football as a whole be protected?
Sources:
- FIFA - official presentation of the FIFA Forward Enterprise project, the financial model, planned investments and governance structure (link)
- The Guardian - contents of the AFC president's letter to the members, the request for a postponement and the political context of the opposition (link)
- Reuters / Al Jazeera - confirmation of statements by Salman bin Ebrahim Al-Khalifa and information on the position of the Asian Football Confederation (link)
- Concacaf - official statement on the lack of consultation, procedure and good-governance requirements (link)
- Associated Press - details on the value of the project, private investors, UEFA's reaction and the approval procedure (link)
- TIME - overview of FFE's commercial structure, development funding amounts and FIFA's previous attempt to attract private capital in 2018 (link)