UEFA calls an emergency meeting over FIFA’s plan: European associations are also considering a World Cup boycott
European football is entering a new phase of conflict with FIFA after the world governing body presented a plan to establish a commercial company valued at approximately 20 billion US dollars and sell a minority stake to private investors. According to information from Sky News and ESPN, UEFA’s 55 member associations are expected to hold an emergency virtual meeting by the end of the week ending on 2 August 2026, at which they will coordinate their response to the project proposed by FIFA president Gianni Infantino. Among the options being discussed is the threat of boycotting future World Cups, but no such decision has been made, nor has it yet been officially confirmed that the necessary support exists among the European associations. It is therefore an ultimate negotiating option, not an announced withdrawal of national teams from a specific competition. Nevertheless, the very fact that a boycott is being considered demonstrates the depth of the mistrust between the two most influential institutions in world football.
The reason for the extraordinary talks is FIFA’s proposal to establish a company called FIFA Forward Enterprise, abbreviated as FFE. According to FIFA’s official announcement of 28 July 2026, the new company would consolidate the organisation’s commercial rights, including television and digital rights, sponsorships, tickets and licensing, as well as the operational delivery of FIFA competitions in men’s, women’s and youth football. FIFA intends to raise up to 4.2 billion dollars from long-term private investors, based on an initial valuation of FFE of around 20 billion dollars. Investors would receive minority, non-controlling stakes, while FIFA, according to its own statements, would retain majority representation in the governing bodies and exclusive authority over rules, the calendar, sporting decisions and competition management. This distinction between commercial ownership and formal sporting control lies at the centre of the dispute.
UEFA warns of a boundary that football institutions should not cross
UEFA reacted extremely sharply, assessing that the proposal crosses a boundary that football institutions should not cross. In a statement reported by Associated Press and Sky Sports, the European organisation said that the soul and governance of football are not assets that can be traded and that nobody owns football. UEFA particularly emphasises the lack of transparency regarding who would profit financially from the project and what long-term influence private capital could have on the largest national-team and club competitions. Its criticism is directed not only at the percentage of shares that would be offered to investors, but also at the principle under which external capital would gain a direct economic interest in a portfolio of competitions whose sporting integrity and universality form the basis of FIFA’s legitimacy. The European governing body is therefore calling on national associations, leagues, clubs, players, supporters and governments to understand the proposal as a question concerning the future model of governance, rather than merely as a financial transaction.
According to a Sky News report, further dissatisfaction was caused by the way in which the project became public. The English Football Association was reportedly not informed of the details in advance, while FIFA claims that it began consultations after receiving the proposal for the new structure. The world governing body says that Infantino spoke to the member associations and the FIFA Council in New York about the need to harness commercial potential before the 2026 World Cup final, but the available reports do not make clear whether the value of the future company, the identities of potential investors and the planned sale of shares were presented at that time. The distinction between a general discussion about revenue growth and a concrete multibillion-dollar transaction has become an important part of the European objections. UEFA’s tone suggests that it will demand detailed guarantees from FIFA concerning the ownership structure, investors’ rights, supervision of management and the protection of competition-related decisions from commercial pressure.
What FIFA wants to achieve with the new company
FIFA presents the project as a way to direct the revenue from the most popular competitions more strongly towards the development of football in all 211 member associations. According to the official plan, each member association could voluntarily request up to 20 million dollars in one-off capital for special projects through the new FIFA Fast Forward programme. At the same time, regular funding per association during the 2027 to 2030 cycle would increase from the currently planned eight million to 20 million dollars. For the period from 2031 to 2034, FIFA envisages 22 million dollars per member association, while for the 2035 to 2038 cycle the amount would rise to 24 million. The organisation claims that, together with existing programmes, total planned development funding over the next four years could exceed ten billion dollars.
According to FIFA, the money would be intended for stadiums, national training centres, coach education, national teams, domestic competitions, grassroots football and the development of women’s football. Infantino describes the project as the democratisation of global football, arguing that even small or geographically remote associations would gain access to capital that would otherwise be beyond their reach within a single financial cycle. FIFA emphasises that participation in the one-off programme would be voluntary and that FFE’s net benefit is intended to be reinvested in football. For a large number of member associations outside the wealthiest markets, such an offer may be extremely attractive because the world governing body’s development grants often constitute an important part of budgets for infrastructure and national-team programmes. This is precisely why UEFA, with its 55 votes, does not itself have a majority among FIFA’s 211 members, although European national teams and commercial markets are enormously important to the value of the World Cup.
Private capital without an operational role or the beginning of a shift in the balance of power
FIFA explicitly claims that investors would have no operational role and would not invest in the non-profit FIFA association itself, but in its commercial subsidiary. According to the official announcement, FIFA would retain a majority on FFE’s board of directors and exclusive jurisdiction over the international calendar, rules, the selection of sporting formats and regulatory decisions. The organisation also states that investors will be selected according to long-term, governance and strategic criteria and that it wants a geographically diverse group of partners. Such a structure should formally prevent private owners from deciding where tournaments will be played, how many national teams will participate or what the qualification system will look like. Critics, however, warn that the economic interests of investors can exert influence even without direct voting rights on sporting matters, for example through expectations concerning revenue growth, the number of matches, commercially attractive time slots and the expansion of the competition portfolio.
Thrive Eternal, a permanent-capital holding company led by Joshua Kushner, has been cited as a possible leader of the investment group. FIFA has confirmed that J.P. Morgan has been engaged on the project, while among the advisers it mentions Greg Maffei, the former head of Liberty Media during the period of its acquisition and ownership of Formula 1, and the company OpenEconomics. According to FIFA, expressions of interest have arrived from Europe, the Americas, Asia and Africa, but the full list of potential investors, individual shareholdings, governance rights and investment exit terms have not been publicly disclosed. This leaves open questions that national associations will have to consider before voting: whether private partners will have special information rights, protection against the dilution of their holdings, guaranteed returns or influence over the business plan. Without published contracts, it is currently impossible to independently assess the extent to which the investors’ practical power would correspond to FIFA’s description of non-controlling ownership.
A boycott is currently a means of pressure, not a decision that has been made
According to Sky News, there is a willingness among European associations to mention withdrawal from World Cups as an ultimate measure if Infantino does not abandon the project or substantially change it. It is not known, however, how many associations support such a move, whether the threat would apply to all FIFA competitions and under what conditions it could become UEFA’s official policy. The legal, sporting and financial consequences of a boycott would be enormous, so it is more realistic to expect the first steps to include a demand for the publication of documentation, a postponement of decision-making, coordinated voting by the member associations and negotiations on protective mechanisms. UEFA would also have to take into account the interests of national teams, players, domestic leagues, television partners, sponsors and supporters, all of whom would be affected by any withdrawal. The reference to a boycott should therefore primarily be viewed as an indication of the seriousness of the conflict and an attempt to strengthen the negotiating position.
The next senior World Cup under FIFA’s auspices will be the women’s tournament in Brazil from 24 June to 25 July 2027. The next men’s tournament will be held in 2030 in Morocco, Portugal and Spain, with three centenary matches in Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay, while Saudi Arabia will host the 2034 edition. It has not been confirmed that the European associations are considering a boycott of any particular tournament, nor that women’s national teams would be included in a possible measure. Such decisions would require a broad political and legal consensus and a clear assessment of the consequences for qualification competitions and contractual obligations. At this moment, there is no basis for claiming that the participation of any national team in an already awarded tournament has been called into question.
FIFA needs the support of a majority of its members and the approval of the Council
FIFA has emphasised that FFE will not be launched through a unilateral administrative decision. According to the official statement, the project requires the support of a majority of national associations and the appropriate regulatory decisions of the FIFA Council. This means that Infantino faces a global political campaign in which he will attempt to convince the member associations that the immediate development benefits outweigh the risks of introducing private capital. UEFA, on the other hand, will seek to demonstrate that the funds being offered cannot replace a transparent procedure, independent oversight and the long-term protection of the public character of football competitions. The outcome will depend not only on European resistance, but also on the positions of the associations from Africa, Asia, North and Central America, the Caribbean, South America and Oceania.
The financial architecture of the project further complicates the debate. Raising 4.2 billion dollars at an initial valuation of 20 billion implies the sale of approximately one fifth of the ownership, although the final percentage may depend on the structure of the transaction, costs and investment terms. FIFA claims that it would retain control, but the national member associations will also have to assess what happens after the initial investment: whether FFE could subsequently sell new shares, take on debt, distribute profits or change its commercial strategy. The duration of the contracts will also be important, because rights to the largest competitions are sold in multiyear cycles, and decisions made in 2026 could shape revenue and the calendar for far longer than the term of the current leadership. Without complete documents, it is impossible to confirm the final value of the transaction or FIFA’s long-term obligations.
The conflict recalls the failed attempt of 2018
This is not the first time that Infantino has attempted to connect FIFA competitions with a major private investment. Reuters reported in 2018 on a consortium linked to SoftBank and a proposal worth 25 billion dollars to develop new international competitions over a period of 12 years. That project provoked strong opposition, particularly in Europe, because of a lack of transparency and fears that the new competitions would undermine the existing system. The plan was ultimately not implemented in the form originally envisaged, but the debate from that period has remained an important precedent for the current dispute. The difference is that the current proposal is based not only on the creation of new tournaments, but on the consolidation of the commercial rights and organisation of FIFA’s existing portfolio within a separate company with private co-owners.
The current moment is additionally sensitive because the project comes immediately after the conclusion of the 2026 World Cup in Canada, Mexico and the United States of America. FIFA claims that almost 16 million people visited the stadiums and official fan zones and that the tournament demonstrated the global commercial potential of the expanded competition. For Infantino, this is an argument that the value created can be converted into substantially larger development transfers. For UEFA, on the contrary, the enormous value of the World Cup is precisely the reason for caution, because an ownership and contractual structure, once established, could be very difficult to change. The conflict is therefore not only about 4.2 billion dollars, but about who is permitted to monetise global football assets and which boundaries must remain beyond the reach of private investors.
The emergency meeting should determine a common European strategy
At the virtual meeting, the European associations will have to decide whether they want a unified response or whether they will act individually. The most likely immediate demands include the publication of FFE’s complete business model, the identities and rights of the investors, an independent valuation, clear conflict-of-interest provisions and legal safeguards that would prevent sporting powers from being transferred to the commercial company. A longer consultation period may also be requested before the proposal is submitted to the member associations for a decision. FIFA, in return, will highlight the increase in development funds and the formal retention of control as proof that it is not selling the governance of football, but a minority stake in a specialised business structure. Whether such guarantees will be sufficient will depend on details that are not yet public.
As of 29 July 2026, there is no confirmation that an agreement has been reached, that the transaction has been completed or that UEFA has made a decision on a boycott. There is an official FIFA proposal, public and extremely sharp criticism from UEFA, and media-confirmed preparations for an emergency meeting of the European associations. The next phase of the conflict should show whether the project can be reshaped through additional oversight and restrictions or whether it will develop into one of the most serious institutional crises in modern international football. For the national associations, the choice will not be merely financial: they will have to assess the short-term benefit of millions in development funding and the long-term cost of opening the most valuable football competitions to private capital.
Sources:
- FIFA – official statement on FIFA Forward Enterprise, the planned capital increase, governance structure and development allocations (link)
- Associated Press – report on UEFA’s reaction, potential investors and the project approval process (link)
- Sky News – information on the emergency virtual meeting of the European associations and the possibility of a boycott (link)
- Sky Sports – overview of FIFA’s proposal, UEFA’s reaction and reports concerning financial advisers (link)
- FIFA – official information on the dates of the Women’s World Cup in Brazil in 2027 (link)
- FIFA – official confirmation of the hosts of the men’s World Cups in 2030 and 2034 (link)
- Reuters – archived report on the 2018 private-investment project involving FIFA competitions (link)