When the men’s football World Cup concluded two weeks ago, FIFA President Gianni Infantino appeared secure in his leadership amid a tournament widely regarded as a commercial and sporting success. However, Infantino’s recent proposal to create a new company to manage FIFA’s commercial interests and sell stakes to private investors has prompted widespread criticism from football federations and associations worldwide, triggering moves toward an extraordinary meeting and a potential vote of no confidence.

Infantino’s plan aimed to unlock new sources of revenue by inviting private investment into FIFA’s commercial operations. While some argue that such commercialisation could bring benefits, striking a balance to protect the interests of all stakeholders remains critical. Private investment and broadcast deals have notably enhanced European football leagues by improving infrastructure, tempering rising ticket costs, and stabilising club finances.

The World Cup itself demonstrated opportunities to increase income through television and sponsorship deals, which still have room to grow compared to other major sports. Expanding football commercially has potential to foster growth in developing regions beyond traditional strongholds in Europe and the Americas.

Nevertheless, many national associations opposed diverting value to private investors, particularly given FIFA’s strong financial position. Unlike Spanish and French leagues, which sought private equity post-pandemic to shore up weakened finances, FIFA boasts reserves of $2.7 billion and expects $15 billion in revenues over the current four-year cycle. Opponents contend that FIFA has the capacity to enhance commercial returns without sacrificing control or reducing direct payments to members.

Concerns also exist about the likely pressure to expand the World Cup or Club World Cup further, potentially overcrowding the football calendar and harming the sport’s broader ecosystem.

Infantino’s approach to unveiling the plan attracted sharp criticism for its secrecy and unilateral nature. The proposal was developed without input from senior FIFA executives and was presented to its 211 member associations on a take-it-or-leave-it basis with just 53 days to respond. Among the plan’s notable elements was an anchor investor tied to the brother of Donald Trump’s son-in-law, a linkage that sparked unease across the football community.

Infantino’s perceived closeness to the former US president, underscored by awarding Trump a FIFA “peace prize” last year and the recent suspension of a red card ban for US striker Folarin Balogun following Trump’s intervention, has fueled skepticism. Although FIFA maintains that its disciplinary committee acted independently in the Balogun case, critics highlight the irony that US law enforcement once played a crucial role in exposing corruption that led to the resignation of Infantino’s predecessor, Sepp Blatter.

This controversy has exposed ongoing weaknesses in FIFA’s governance, characterized by a concentration of power in the president’s office and insufficient transparency and oversight. Despite FIFA’s status as a non-profit association, industry observers argue that a global organisation generating billions in revenue would typically require collaborative decision-making involving senior management and board members for major business initiatives.

The backlash against Infantino’s plan may signal a broader call for comprehensive governance reform within FIFA, similar to or exceeding changes implemented a decade ago. Many suggest that a leadership change could be a necessary first step toward restoring trust and ensuring more accountable stewardship of world football.