Infantino defends FIFA's private capital plan: "It is an opportunity, not an obligation", as confederation resistance grows
FIFA President Gianni Infantino has sought to ease mounting opposition to a project that would give private investors a minority stake in a new company responsible for the commercial and operational activities of the world's biggest football competitions. In a video message published on July 29, 2026, he argued that FIFA Forward Enterprise, abbreviated as FFE, is not a final decision imposed on national associations, but a proposal that has yet to be discussed. "It is an opportunity, not an obligation", Infantino said, describing the project as part of a democratic and consultative process. According to his interpretation, the objective is not the privatization of sporting governance, but the creation of an additional source of capital that would be directed toward football development around the world. His address, however, did not resolve the key disputes concerning transparency, deadlines, the rights of future investors and the manner in which the proposal was presented to FIFA's members.
The plan envisages the establishment of FIFA Forward Enterprise, a subsidiary with an initial equity valuation estimated at 20 billion US dollars. FIFA would offer external investors an ownership stake of up to 20 percent and thereby seek to raise as much as 4.2 billion dollars. According to information published by FIFA and the Associated Press, the new company would consolidate commercial and event operations connected with the men's and women's World Cups, the Club World Cup and other global competitions. This would include areas such as broadcasting rights, sponsorships, licensing, ticket sales and the commercial organization of events. FIFA claims that it would retain a majority stake and full authority over rules, the calendar, competition formats, regulatory matters and all sporting decisions.
Infantino emphasizes the distinction between commercial investment and football governance
The central part of Infantino's defense is based on the claim that selling a minority, non-controlling stake would not amount to selling the World Cup itself or transferring football authority to investment funds. According to him, FIFA would remain independent in governing football, while private capital would be limited to a financial interest in a company managing the commercial potential of competitions. Infantino described the project as a "golden opportunity" to accelerate football development, particularly in countries and associations that do not have strong domestic revenues. He added that many parts of the world still do not receive a proportionate share of the value created by football's global popularity.
This separation of sporting and commercial decision-making is currently one of the most contentious points. UEFA and other organizations are not necessarily claiming that private investors would immediately receive a formal right to change competition rules, but they warn that financial objectives could shape organizers' priorities in the long term. Investors who commit billions of dollars naturally expect revenue growth, stable cash flows and an ability to influence business strategy, even when they do not hold a majority stake. For that reason, opponents of the project are demanding details about shareholder rights, protective clauses, the composition of the board, the method of profit distribution and FIFA's possible obligations toward investors. In the publicly available information up to July 30, the complete contractual documents and all legal analyses that would allow an independent assessment of how genuinely separate the commercial and sporting spheres would remain had not been published.
Members offered a major financial incentive with a September 19 deadline
FIFA sent the proposal to its 211 national associations, which form the ownership and political foundation of the organization registered as a nonprofit association in Switzerland. According to a letter obtained by the Associated Press, Infantino set September 19, 2026, as the deadline for members to accept the proposed model. Every association that supports the project was offered access to a one-time amount of up to 20 million dollars, financed by the planned sale of the stake. In addition, the documents and media reports mention increased development funding for the cycle connected with the 2030 World Cup, meaning that the total potential value for an individual member could reach 40 million dollars. Associations that do not accept the new model would retain a considerably smaller amount of previously planned funding.
Infantino presents such an offer as an option rather than coercion, but it is precisely the combination of a short deadline and a large financial incentive that has further intensified criticism. In its official response, UEFA assessed that withdrawing the one-time payment from members that do not support the project reveals the true nature of the pressure. Formally, a national association may refuse to participate, but a difference of tens of millions of dollars carries entirely different weight for wealthy federations with large broadcasting and sponsorship revenues than for small associations that depend heavily on FIFA's development programs. For that reason, the debate is not only about whether a legal obligation exists, but also about whether the process has been structured in a way that allows members to make a free and sufficiently informed decision. Critics are also demanding more time to analyze the long-term consequences of a project whose financial effects could last for several competition cycles.
FIFA builds its argument on the principle of global redistribution. The organization states that it invests World Cup revenue in development programs for all members, including football infrastructure, youth competitions, women's football, coach education and administrative capacity. On July 18, ahead of the conclusion of the 2026 World Cup, Infantino said that FIFA's revenue in the 2023-2026 cycle could exceed 15 billion dollars. FIFA's official announcement also states that allocations through the FIFA Forward program in the 2027-2030 cycle are expected to reach a record 2.7 billion dollars. FIFA uses precisely this commercial success as evidence that additional, still untapped value exists and that a new corporate structure could convert it into capital available immediately, rather than into revenue arriving over several years.
UEFA: Football is not an asset that FIFA can sell
UEFA responded in unusually sharp language immediately after the first reports about the project. In an official statement dated July 28, it said that "the soul and governance of football are not assets to be traded" and that the World Cup is not FIFA's property to sell. The European confederation particularly highlighted the lack of transparency over who would profit financially, and one day later it additionally criticized the deadline imposed on national associations and the linking of their support to a one-time payment. UEFA argues that FIFA should not use the global sport to enrich a narrow circle of organizations and individuals and calls for a model that prioritizes associations, clubs, leagues, players and supporters. Opposition has not remained limited to Europe. The Asian Football Confederation, AFC, announced that it had not been given an opportunity to study the proposal in detail or discuss it within its own bodies before the public announcement. AFC President Salman bin Ebrahim Al Khalifa subsequently called for a comprehensive legal, financial, ethical and governance review in a letter to members, according to a report by The Guardian, and warned that a decision of such importance must not be made through an accelerated process. The AFC has 47 members, and its response is politically important because the confederation has generally supported the FIFA president during most of Infantino's tenure. If the Asian associations adopt a unified critical position, the balance of votes within the global organization could become considerably more uncertain.
Concacaf, the confederation of North and Central America and the Caribbean, expressed similar concern. In an official statement, it said that details of the project had been presented publicly before discussion with the relevant governing bodies and stakeholders. Concacaf emphasized that FIFA, the confederations and national associations have a shared duty to act in the best interests of the sport, with good governance, robust procedures and long-term stewardship of football. The spread of dissatisfaction beyond UEFA weakens the claim that this is merely a traditional conflict between Europe and the global governing body.
Who would invest and what the new company would control
According to information published by FIFA and the Associated Press, J.P. Morgan is expected to lead the capital-raising process and the selection of a broader group of international investors. Thrive Eternal, an investment platform linked to Joshua Kushner, has been mentioned as an initial or key investor. FIFA has announced that investors would be carefully selected and focused on the long term, but the complete list of interested funds, the selection criteria and details of their position within the ownership structure have not been publicly presented. A valuation of 20 billion dollars implies that a 20-percent stake would be worth approximately four billion dollars, which is consistent with the goal of raising up to 4.2 billion. The final amount, the percentage of the stake sold and the transaction terms will depend on investor valuation, due diligence and approvals within FIFA.
It is crucial to distinguish ownership of the commercial company from ownership of the competition itself. What would be transferred to the new structure are the activities and revenues generated around the competitions: broadcasting, sponsorships, licensing, hospitality, tickets and other commercial products. Nevertheless, these revenues are FIFA's main source of power and the foundation of its development system. Critics therefore warn that even a minority private stake could change the way the organization assesses tournament frequency, competition size, match schedules, marketing packages and the prices charged to supporters, even without directly interfering with sporting rules.
FIFA responds that majority ownership and the clear retention of regulatory powers can prevent such influence. In corporate practice, however, protection depends not only on the percentage of shares, but also on the company's articles of association, shareholder agreements, veto rights, board obligations and the objectives of the business plan. This is precisely why the confederations are demanding documents rather than political assurances alone. It has not been officially confirmed what rights private partners would have when appointing board members, adopting multi-year budgets or approving major commercial contracts. Without that information, it is impossible to make a final assessment of whether FFE would merely be a financial instrument under FIFA's firm control or a separate center of commercial power with its own logic of growth.
Old conflict over revenue distribution gains a new dimension
The conflict between FIFA and UEFA also has a broader institutional background. FIFA depends on revenue from the World Cups, while UEFA manages exceptionally valuable European club and national-team competitions, including the Champions League and the European Championship. Any increase in the number or scale of FIFA tournaments can affect the calendar, player availability, the television market and the commercial space available to continental competitions. Private investors in FFE would have an interest in global competitions generating the highest and most predictable possible revenue, so the confederations fear that pressure for expansion could become permanent. FIFA, on the other hand, argues that most of world football cannot develop without the money generated by its most important competition and that wealthier markets should not retain a disproportionate share of the sport's total value.
The current proposal also recalls Infantino's 2018 attempt to use private capital to launch an expanded Club World Cup and a new international national-team competition. At the time, there was discussion of a package worth around 25 billion dollars and a consortium linked to SoftBank, but the project did not receive the necessary institutional support. FFE is therefore more ambitious than the previous proposal: it would not finance only a single new tournament, but would encompass a broader portfolio of FIFA's commercial rights. It is precisely this breadth that explains why opponents regard it as a possible turning point in the governance of global football.
What comes next before a decision
As of July 30, 2026, the project remained a proposal rather than a completed transaction. National associations must study the offer, while the confederations are demanding additional consultations and full documentation. According to the information published so far, the project requires the support of a majority of FIFA's members to proceed, after which the organization's competent bodies would have to approve the final structure. It is unclear whether FIFA will extend the September 19 deadline because of the pressure, amend the financial terms or publish an independent legal and governance analysis. It has also not been officially confirmed exactly when the investment transaction could be completed or whether all associations would participate under equal conditions.
Infantino's message that there is no obligation therefore reflects the project's formal status, but it does not end the political debate. For FIFA, FFE is a way to convert future commercial growth in advance into billions of dollars for development programs. For UEFA, the AFC, Concacaf and other critics, it is a decision that could change the balance between nonprofit governance of the sport and the interests of private capital. The final assessment will depend on details that are not yet public: investors' contractual rights, oversight mechanisms, the method of profit distribution and guarantees that commercial objectives will not determine sporting priorities. Until those documents become available, the claim that private capital will have no influence will remain a political promise that has yet to be confirmed by the legal structure of the new enterprise.
Sources:
- FIFA - official announcement on revenue following the 2026 World Cup, development investment and the intention to increase commercial potential (link)
- Associated Press - details of Infantino's letter to members, the September 19 deadline, the financial offer and the planned FFE ownership structure (link)
- Channel News Asia / Reuters - Infantino's statement that the project is "an opportunity, not an obligation" and an explanation of FIFA's model (link)
- UEFA - official response to the plan and criticism of the sale of a stake in the commercial operations of FIFA competitions (link)
- UEFA - additional statement on the deadline for members and the financial incentive linked to support for the project (link)
- Asian Football Confederation - official request for consultations and a detailed analysis of the FIFA Forward Enterprise proposal (link)
- Concacaf - official response concerning the lack of prior discussion, procedure and the responsibility of football institutions (link)