FIFA President Gianni Infantino has proposed a plan to partially privatize the World Cup by selling stakes in the competition’s commercial rights to private investors through a new subsidiary company, FIFA Forward Enterprises (FFE). The initiative, announced in late July 2026, aims to raise approximately $4.2 billion by inviting investors to acquire minority, non-controlling shares in FFE, while FIFA would retain majority ownership and governance control. The proposal requires approval from FIFA’s 211 member associations by a September 19 deadline.
Under the plan, each member association would be offered a one-time payment of $20 million for their participation, with total funding to member associations potentially increasing to $10 billion over the next cycle—up from $2.7 billion without investor involvement. FIFA has emphasized that it would maintain exclusive authority over football governance, competition organization, and the international match calendar. However, concerns have been raised about the long-term implications of private investment on the sport’s structure and scheduling.
Reports indicate that Thrive Capital, led by Joshua Kushner—brother of Jared Kushner, special envoy to the Middle East and son-in-law of former U.S. President Donald Trump—is expected to lead the investor group, with Apollo Global Management and J.P. Morgan playing advisory and investment roles. The involvement of individuals connected to the Trump family has drawn political scrutiny, with U.S. lawmakers seeking testimony from Infantino over perceived intertwining of FIFA’s operations with Trump’s network.
The proposal has met with a strong backlash, particularly from European football authorities and prominent football organizations. UEFA, the governing body for European football, has condemned the plan as a threat to the sport’s integrity, signaling the possibility of emergency meetings and even discussing boycott actions against FIFA competitions should the proposal move forward. UEFA’s vice-president highlighted Europe’s significant competitive presence in recent World Cups as leverage against the plan. The European Leagues Association, the Premier League, and the European Football Clubs group also criticized the lack of consultation and transparency, expressing concerns over governance and the potential erosion of football’s traditional structures.
In addition to Europe’s opposition, the Asian Football Confederation and CONCACAF—the North and Central American federation—have expressed disappointment over being excluded from the planning process. African football’s governing body, CAF, has withheld judgment pending further review, while South American (CONMEBOL) and Oceanic (OFC) confederations have yet to issue statements. Player unions such as Fifpro voiced apprehension about the impact on player welfare, competition schedules, and long-term governance.
Critics argue that introducing private capital could incentivize FIFA to further commercialize and expand major tournaments, potentially increasing the World Cup’s size beyond its current 48 teams or shifting to a biennial format to maximize investor returns. There is also concern that hosting rights might gravitate toward wealthier nations, such as the U.S. or Gulf states like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE. Some observers view the proposal as a cash grab by FIFA’s leadership, particularly Infantino, who has been criticized for prioritizing financial gains over the sport’s traditional values.
Infantino, who is running unopposed for re-election in 2027 and faces a presidential term limit in 2031, reportedly plans to assume a commissioner or CEO role in the FFE subsidiary thereafter, similar to models seen in American sports leagues. FIFA has denied that this arrangement has been concretely agreed upon.
Support for Infantino’s plan largely comes from smaller and less wealthy football associations that stand to benefit financially from increased funding. FIFA asserts the plan will democratize football investment worldwide, directing resources to often-overlooked regions and enhancing global development efforts.
Despite the divided reactions and uncertainties—including legal questions about changing FIFA’s nonprofit status and regulatory responses from entities like the European Union—the submission of the plan to a membership vote appears imminent. Given FIFA’s equal voting structure among all member associations, the substantial financial incentives may secure majority approval despite opposition from major European federations, whose participation remains crucial for the World Cup’s success. The outcome will likely depend on the extent and effectiveness of coordinated resistance by powerful football stakeholders and fan bases globally.