FIFA responds to UEFA: "Nobody is selling football", but private investment plan remains active
On 31 July 2026, FIFA rejected allegations that President Gianni Infantino intends to "sell" the World Cup to private investors and confirmed that it is continuing consultations on establishing a new commercial company, FIFA Forward Enterprise. In a statement published following its sharpest dispute with UEFA to date, world football's governing body said that the proposed company would remain under its permanent ownership and control. FIFA claims that private capital would not receive authority over the rules, calendar, competition formats or other sporting decisions. Nevertheless, the proposal has not been withdrawn; instead, all 211 FIFA member associations will be able to examine it, propose amendments and ultimately accept or reject it.
The response from Zurich came after UEFA and all 55 of its national associations unanimously announced on 30 July that they would not participate in any FIFA competition for as long as the project remained active. The European confederation is demanding the complete abandonment of the proposal and binding guarantees that FIFA will not open its competitions or governance structures to private ownership in the future. At the heart of the dispute is not only the question of who would have formal control, but also whether the entry of investors would permanently change the way decisions are made about football's most valuable competitions. FIFA claims that the money would accelerate football development around the world, while UEFA warns that the obligation to generate returns for investors could eventually outweigh sporting interests.
What FIFA Forward Enterprise is
According to FIFA's official proposal, FIFA Forward Enterprise, abbreviated as FFE, would be a special subsidiary combining the commercial activities and operational organisation of FIFA events. This includes the sale of television and media rights, sponsorships, tickets, licensing and business operations connected with the World Cup and other tournaments in men's, women's and youth football. FIFA states that such a separation would allow more professional management of the commercial portfolio and the generation of revenues that, in its assessment, are not currently being fully exploited. The new company would initially be valued at 20 billion dollars, with a plan to raise up to 4.2 billion dollars by selling minority stakes without management control. Thrive Eternal, an investment company linked to American entrepreneur Joshua Kushner, has been mentioned as the expected leader of the investor group, while J.P. Morgan has been engaged as an adviser in the process.
FIFA explicitly claims that external investors would have no operational role and would not be investing in FIFA itself, but only in its commercial subsidiary. Under the published model, FIFA would retain a majority on FFE's governing body and exclusive jurisdiction over football rules, competitions, the international calendar and all regulatory and sporting decisions. Critics believe that formally separating these powers does not eliminate economic pressure. If the subsidiary's value and investor returns depend on revenue growth, decisions about expanding competitions, increasing the number of matches and entering new markets could indirectly become part of the same business interest.
Billions for development and two different types of payment
FIFA's most important argument is the promise of significantly greater development funding for national associations. Under the plan, each of the 211 members would receive 20 million dollars through the regular FIFA Forward programme in the 2027-2030 cycle, instead of the eight million dollars currently planned. FIFA emphasises that this amount would be allocated to all members regardless of whether they individually supported the proposal. For the period from 2031 to 2034, 22 million dollars per association is planned, followed by another 24 million for the 2035-2038 cycle. The money could be used for infrastructure, national training centres, coach development, national teams, domestic competitions, grassroots football and women's football.
Alongside the regular increase, there is also a separate FIFA Fast Forward Programme, conceived as a voluntary, one-off opportunity for each association to draw an additional 20 million dollars for major development projects. It is precisely these one-off funds that would be financed by the initial private-capital investment in FFE. When the planned cycles and the possible special payment are added together, an individual association could access a total of up to 86 million dollars by 2038. FIFA claims that the net benefits of the new subsidiary would be returned to football and that the total development package could exceed ten billion dollars. For many smaller associations, whose annual revenues and infrastructure capacities depend heavily on FIFA programmes, this is a financial offer that could substantially change their opportunities.
The dispute intensified further following claims that associations were given a short deadline to accept the model in order to retain the right to the one-off payment. On 29 July, UEFA accused FIFA of presenting national associations with an ultimatum, and Concacaf also criticised the "artificially short deadline" the following day. In a subsequent clarification, FIFA said that all parts of the proposal were merely an initial basis for consultation and could be accepted, rejected or amended individually or in their entirety. The organisation also stated that participation in the one-off programme would be voluntary. Nevertheless, the question of deadlines, conditions and the exact relationship between support for the project and access to the money has remained one of the key areas of mistrust.
FIFA: Incorrect reports disrupted the consultation
In response to the criticism, FIFA stated that inaccurate media reports had disrupted the planned consultation process before national associations had been given the opportunity to study the documentation. The organisation said that "nobody is selling football" and that it would never consider such a possibility. FIFA also rejects the possibility of one confederation or group of associations speaking on behalf of all 211 members. Its official position is that every member must have the right to examine the facts and vote on its own future.
The project will not be launched without the support of a majority of national associations and the appropriate decisions of the FIFA Council. If there is no majority, FIFA claims that its commercial activities will remain in their current form and FFE will not be established. FIFA is thereby trying to soften the impression that the deal has already been agreed, even though advisers, a possible lead investor and the financial framework have already been presented. It is precisely this level of preparation that has prompted opponents to suspect that the consultation began too late. The difference between FIFA's description of the project as an open proposal and the confederations' perception that they are facing an almost completed model is now one of the main obstacles to an agreement.
UEFA announces unprecedented boycott
UEFA's reaction went far beyond the usual exchange of critical statements between football institutions. Following an emergency meeting of all 55 members, the European confederation announced that its national teams would not participate in any FIFA competition for as long as the proposal remained active. UEFA claims that the World Cup is not an investment product, but a sporting heritage created over generations by players, national teams and supporters from every continent. In its view, no governing body has the moral right to sell part of something that it only temporarily administers on behalf of the entire football community. The European organisation therefore does not accept FIFA's distinction between ownership of a commercial subsidiary and an ownership interest connected with the competitions.
When private owners invest billions of dollars, the confederation warns, their legitimate objective becomes growth in value and financial returns. This could create constant pressure to increase the number of matches, expand tournaments, sell additional rights and adapt schedules to the markets generating the highest revenues. The consequences would also spill over into domestic leagues, continental cups, clubs and player workload. UEFA therefore claims that the problem is not limited to legal control, but encompasses the future relationship between sporting and commercial priorities.
The European confederation also accused FIFA of preparing the project without genuine consultation with the institutions that govern a large part of world football. In its statement, the process was described as non-transparent and coercive, particularly because rapid support was linked to the possibility of accessing a large one-off payment. FIFA rejects that interpretation and points to the final vote of all members. However, the fact that all 55 European associations publicly supported a common position means that this is no longer merely a dispute between the two presidents, Gianni Infantino and Aleksander Čeferin. It is an institutional conflict that, unless resolved quickly, could have direct sporting consequences.
Concacaf rejects proposal, AFC expresses solidarity
Opposition has not remained limited to Europe. Following a meeting of its 41 members, Concacaf officially rejected the proposal and requested an examination of whether FIFA's existing reserves could be used to increase development funding without selling minority stakes to private capital. The Confederation of North, Central America and the Caribbean particularly questioned the need for external investment after what it described as the most profitable World Cup in history. It also criticised the absence of prior discussion in the competent bodies and demanded compliance with the procedures established by FIFA's statutes. That position is important because it comes from the region that has just hosted the 2026 World Cup and directly participated in generating the revenues on which FIFA relies.
The Asian Football Confederation initially announced that it had not been consulted, and on 31 July it expressed solidarity with UEFA and Concacaf regarding serious concerns over private investment in FIFA's leading competitions and the way decisions are made. The AFC did not announce an equally formal boycott decision, but warned that the very possibility of such a scenario was a sign of a deep crisis. The African confederation CAF has not yet adopted a final position. Its Executive Committee is expected to assess the proposal, while African national associations have been invited to study the documentation and participate in the consultation. Because of the large number of associations for which FIFA development funding is particularly important, the positions of Africa, South America and Oceania could be decisive for the final majority.
The professional footballers' union FIFPRO has also called for a transparent and inclusive process. The organisation representing players stressed that decisions concerning the commercial development and governance of international football directly affect professionals' working conditions, schedules and workload. FIFPRO has not rejected every form of new commercial structure in advance, but stated that proposals of such importance must not be shaped through ultimatums. Any future version of the project will therefore have to address not only the issue of formal ownership, but also the demand for measurable safeguards against excessive commercialisation.
The first practical test could come as early as September
The announcement of a European boycott is not an abstract threat connected only with the next men's World Cup. The first FIFA competition on the current calendar is the FIFA U-20 Women's World Cup, scheduled to take place in Poland from 5 to 27 September 2026. The 24 participants include hosts Poland, as well as England, France, Italy, Portugal and Spain. If UEFA's joint decision remained in force until the beginning of the tournament, FIFA would face the withdrawal of several national teams, disrupted groups and serious organisational problems. Given the short period until the first match, this tournament could become the immediate indicator of whether the boycott is negotiating pressure or a decision that the associations are prepared to implement.
The longer-term risks are even greater. The 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup in Brazil is scheduled from 24 June to 25 July, and European national teams account for a large share of the competition's sporting and commercial appeal. The men's 2030 World Cup binds FIFA and UEFA even more closely because Spain and Portugal, together with Morocco, are the main hosts, while Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay will stage three centenary celebration matches. A prolonged split would raise questions concerning qualification, contracts, television rights and relations with the hosts. Nevertheless, there is currently no official confirmation that any competition will be cancelled or that any European national team has already withdrawn its entry.
Voting remains open, but the political cost is rising
FIFA is now attempting to return the debate to the framework of formal consultation, with the message that the final decision belongs to the national associations. Its offer combines a long-term increase in development funding with one-off capital for projects that many smaller members would be unable to finance without additional assistance. Opponents, however, are demanding that FIFA first explain why the same objective cannot be achieved by using existing revenues and reserves, without introducing private co-owners into business connected with the most valuable competitions. Concacaf has already formally raised that question, while UEFA claims that financial benefits cannot offset the risk of permanently changing the governance model. The debate therefore comes down to a choice between faster access to capital and preserving a completely closed ownership circle within football institutions.
The outcome will depend on whether FIFA can offer more precise legal and governance guarantees and convince members that external investors truly could not influence sporting decisions. Equally important will be whether it relaxes the deadlines and separates development payments from the perception that they are being used to purchase political support. UEFA has set a very high condition for withdrawing the boycott: complete abandonment of the proposal and a permanent guarantee against private ownership of governance or competitions. FIFA has not accepted that demand so far and continues to present the project as a proposal that can be amended. As a result, on 31 July 2026, the situation remained unchanged on the most important point: FFE had not been approved, but neither had it been withdrawn, while the threat of a European boycott remained active.
Sources:
- FIFA - clarification of the FIFA Forward Enterprise proposal and continuation of consultation with 211 members (link)
- FIFA - official presentation of the financial model, investment and increase in development funding (link)
- UEFA - joint statement by UEFA and 55 national associations on the boycott of FIFA competitions (link)
- Concacaf - decision by 41 members to reject the proposal and request a different method of financing development (link)
- Asian Football Confederation - position on private investment and solidarity with UEFA and Concacaf (link)
- CAF - information on the assessment of the proposal within the African confederation (link)
- FIFPRO - request for a transparent process and the involvement of player representatives (link)
- FIFA - schedule for the FIFA U-20 Women's World Cup in Poland 2026 (link)
- Associated Press - context of the dispute, confederation reactions and the possible impact of the boycott on FIFA competitions (link)