Infantino’s World Cup Sell-Off Plan: How FIFA’s President Has Gone Further Than Blatter Ever Dared
Just days after the final whistle of the 2026 World Cup, FIFA president Gianni Infantino dropped a bombshell that has plunged world football into one of its deepest crises in years. Reports and subsequent confirmation from the governing body revealed plans to create a new commercial subsidiary, FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE), and sell minority stakes in it to private investors. The entity would control the commercial rights and operational delivery of the men’s and women’s World Cups, the Club World Cup and other major FIFA events. Critics immediately branded the scheme a “nuclear bomb” for the sport and accused Infantino of going further in commercialising football’s most sacred asset than even his disgraced predecessor Sepp Blatter ever attempted.
The proposal values FFE at approximately $20 billion. FIFA would retain a majority stake and exclusive authority over governance, the international match calendar, competitions and all regulatory and sporting decisions. External investors would be invited to purchase minority, non-controlling interests — reported in the region of 20 to 21 per cent — with the aim of raising up to $4.2 billion. JPMorgan is advising on the project, and Joshua Kushner’s Thrive Capital (also referred to in some reports as Thrive Eternal) is expected to lead the investor group. Kushner is the younger brother of Jared Kushner, son-in-law of US President Donald Trump. Sources close to the discussions indicated that figures linked to the Trump administration had been consulted.
Each of FIFA’s 211 member associations would receive a stake or access to substantial new funding. Infantino has written to the associations offering a package that could reach $40 million per association if they support the plan by a 19 September deadline. This includes an initial one-off payment of around $20 million available from 1 January 2027, plus enhanced development funding for the 2027-2031 cycle. Associations that reject the proposal would receive significantly less under the existing Forward programme — figures cited in the letter put the alternative at roughly $10 million per association for the cycle, meaning a potential shortfall of $30 million for those who say no. FIFA projects that the overall development funding unlocked could exceed $10 billion over four years.
Infantino has framed the initiative as the “democratisation of football.” In official statements he argued that the commercial side of the game needs a focused, dedicated structure so that its value can be shared more widely. “Every FIFA member association should have an opportunity to seek a fair share of the available funding to shape its own future, deciding for itself rather than relying on others,” he said. FIFA has insisted that outside investors would have no operational role, that all net benefits would be reinvested in the game, and that “for FIFA, nothing changes” in terms of control.
The reaction has been swift and furious. UEFA issued a blistering statement: “This crosses a line that football’s governing institutions should never cross. The soul and governance of football are not assets to trade — especially with zero transparency as to who gains financially. None of us are the owners of football. It is not FIFA’s to sell.” European associations are preparing an emergency meeting, with the threat of a boycott of future FIFA competitions among the options under discussion. German football official Hans-Joachim Watzke called it an “absolute attack on football.” UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham added his voice, declaring that “Football does not belong to investors. It belongs to the people who fill the stands… The World Cup is not a product… Once you have sold a piece of it, you have sold out.”
Sepp Blatter, who led FIFA for 17 years before resigning amid a major corruption scandal, has also condemned the plan. On social media and in comments to media he said the close relationship between the FIFA president and the US president had “reached a financial dimension that is deeply damaging football.” “No one has the right to sell our game,” Blatter wrote. Later he told Reuters that football belongs to the people, not to any individual or institution, and that turning FIFA into a profit-oriented corporate structure would mean losing its soul.
The comparison with Blatter is inevitable and pointed. Blatter’s long reign was marked by endemic corruption, vote-buying allegations and the FIFAGate scandal that led to high-profile arrests. Infantino arrived in 2016 promising reform and transparency. Over a decade he has expanded the World Cup to 48 teams, introduced the expanded Club World Cup, driven revenues dramatically higher (the 2026 tournament is projected to generate well over $11 billion), and cultivated close relationships with powerful political leaders, most notably Trump. Supporters credit him with distributing more money to smaller associations and growing the women’s game. Detractors see relentless commercialisation, fixture congestion, controversial political alignments, and now an attempt to sell equity in the World Cup itself to private capital with clear Trump-family links.
Reports have suggested Infantino could later become commissioner or a senior executive of FFE once his expected final presidential term ends in 2031, a role that sources claim could be extremely lucrative. FIFA has denied or downplayed any such arrangement, stating that the president and administration have a duty to oversee the project’s development. Still, the perception of personal enrichment has fuelled the anger.
The plan requires approval by a simple majority of the 211 member associations plus the FIFA Council. Infantino’s power base in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean and parts of the Americas remains strong; many of those federations stand to gain the most from the cash injections. European associations, though influential, represent only about a quarter of the membership. That arithmetic makes passage possible even in the face of fierce opposition. Whether the threat of a European boycott materialises, and how it would affect the competitive integrity of future World Cups, remains an open and dangerous question.
This episode crystallises the central tension of modern FIFA: a non-profit association that has become one of the most powerful commercial machines in sport. Infantino argues he is simply unlocking value for the benefit of the entire global game. Critics counter that once private investors hold a stake in the commercial engine of the World Cup, the pressure for further expansion, more frequent tournaments, higher prices and decisions driven by returns rather than the health of the sport becomes inevitable. They fear the “soul” of the competition — its four-year rarity, its universal accessibility, its status as a global commons — is being put on the market.
As associations weigh the September deadline and the large sums on offer against the principle of public stewardship of the World Cup, football faces a defining choice. Blatter’s era ended in scandal and institutional crisis. Infantino’s latest move has raised the stakes higher still, testing whether the sport’s most valuable asset can be partially privatised without losing what made it valuable in the first place. The coming weeks will show whether member associations prioritise the immediate cash or draw a line that even Blatter never crossed.
About The Author
