Why Cash-Strapped Africa Could Become FIFA’s Unexpected Ally in the World Cup Stake Sale Row
Global football is in the grip of one of its most serious governance crises in years. UEFA has threatened to boycott future World Cups and other FIFA competitions if plans to sell private stakes in the sport’s biggest tournaments go ahead. CONCACAF and the Asian Football Confederation have also rejected the proposal. Yet one major continental body has remained notably measured: the Confederation of African Football. The reason Africa could ultimately back FIFA President Gianni Infantino’s controversial scheme is not complicated. It comes down to money, history, and a relationship that has delivered tangible gains for a continent long short-changed by the global game.
At the heart of the dispute is FIFA’s plan to create a commercial subsidiary called FIFA Forward Enterprise. This new entity would run the organisation’s major competitions, including the men’s and women’s World Cups. External investors would be invited to buy minority, non-controlling stakes. FIFA has suggested the move could raise more than $4 billion. In return, every one of FIFA’s 211 member associations that supports the proposal by a 19 September deadline has been promised a significant financial package: roughly $40 million in total, with an initial $20 million potentially available as early as 1 January.
For European federations sitting on substantial commercial revenues and strong domestic leagues, the offer looks like a dangerous step toward the privatisation of a public good. For many African associations, it looks like a lifeline.
Football on the African continent is chronically underfunded. Governments frequently prioritise hospitals, schools and basic infrastructure over sports federations. Malawi FA president Fleetwood Haiya put the reality bluntly when speaking to the BBC. His government, he said, cannot manage to give even $1 million a year for football. “Our government is not able to make sure that they have medical supplies in hospitals and at the same time to look at football. Malawi needs money. Malawi needs stadiums.” Haiya declared himself “100% in support” of FIFA’s proposal and said he could not understand why it had taken so long.
Similar sentiments have been voiced elsewhere. Rogers Byamukama of the Ugandan Football Federation argued that football is an expensive venture “especially on the African continent where the resources are not easy to come by.” He pointed to FIFA-funded projects already transforming the game in Uganda: federation headquarters, a technical centre and stadium facilities. From his perspective, any avenue that brings more resources and allows them to be distributed to federations that need them most is worth exploring. “What is wrong with making more money and sharing that money with those that need it most?” he asked.
These are not abstract arguments. African nations that have received and carefully used FIFA development funding have shown visible results. Cape Verde’s impressive debut campaign at the 2026 World Cup followed increased spending on logistics and preparation that was made possible by earlier FIFA support. Malawi’s women’s team produced a surprise run at the Women’s Africa Cup of Nations after FIFA-backed investment in the women’s game. Administrators across the continent repeatedly return to the same point: without external money, basic infrastructure and player development programmes simply do not happen at the required scale.
The financial incentive sits on top of a political relationship that has been carefully cultivated for a decade. Since Infantino and CAF president Patrice Motsepe both took office in 2016, the two organisations have developed unusually close ties. Motsepe has publicly described Infantino as “a good friend” and “loyal to Africa.” After the 2026 World Cup he went further, declaring that when people have been loyal, “you never stab them in the back.” Africa was the clearest beneficiary of the expansion of the World Cup to 48 teams, receiving nine guaranteed places instead of the previous five. Motsepe has repeatedly credited Infantino with that breakthrough, describing it as “enormously important” for the continent’s development.
Personal connections reinforce the institutional ones. Veron Mosengo-Omba, who served as Motsepe’s deputy for several years, previously worked as FIFA’s chief member associations officer and studied law alongside Infantino in Switzerland. He has since become president of the DR Congo football federation. The network of relationships has helped keep lines of communication open even when other confederations have turned confrontational.
CAF itself has not yet taken a formal position. Its executive committee is scheduled to meet to assess and evaluate the FIFA Forward Enterprise proposal. In the meantime the confederation has encouraged its 54 member associations to examine the plan carefully and participate in the consultation process. The language is deliberately non-committal, but it stands in sharp contrast to the outright rejection and boycott threats coming from Europe.
Not every African voice is enthusiastic. Isha Johansen, a former president of the Sierra Leone FA who also served on the CAF executive committee and the FIFA Council, has expressed unease. The proposal “does not sit well,” she said. While acknowledging that the money would be a game-changer for many federations, she warned that football risks being commercialised in ways that could threaten its integrity. “As a businessman or woman you want something out of it. You’re not just doing it out of generosity. What price does one have to pay in order to get to this elevated development for football in Africa?” Johansen hopes CAF ultimately aligns with the other confederations opposing the plan.
There are longer-term risks as well. Some observers worry that large injections of FIFA cash could prompt governments already stretched thin to reduce or withdraw their own limited funding for football. Others note that CAF’s closeness to FIFA has sometimes meant muted public criticism of controversial decisions, from refereeing controversies to calendar changes that forced the Africa Cup of Nations into awkward slots. The decision to stage AFCON every four years from 2028 rather than every two was widely seen as prioritising the global calendar over African interests, yet CAF leadership presented it as being “in the interests of Africa.”
Still, the arithmetic of FIFA politics is unforgiving. Each of the 211 member associations has one vote. UEFA’s 55 members can threaten boycotts and dominate the commercial landscape, but they cannot outvote the rest of the world on their own. Africa’s 54 associations, together with Oceania and potentially some South American or Asian members who remain undecided, represent a decisive bloc. Infantino has built his presidency on the support of smaller and developing federations precisely because they have the numbers.
For African football administrators the calculation is therefore intensely practical. The world’s richest leagues and clubs are overwhelmingly European. African players generate enormous value in those leagues, yet the financial return to their home federations remains limited. FIFA’s development funding has been one of the few reliable sources of investment in infrastructure, coaching and women’s football. The new proposal simply scales that model up dramatically. In the short term, the offer of $20 million arriving within months is difficult to refuse when stadiums are crumbling and national teams struggle to finance basic preparation camps.
Whether that short-term gain is worth the longer-term risks to the governance and independence of the global game is the question now facing CAF’s executive committee and its member associations. Europe sees a dangerous privatisation of football’s crown jewels. Many in Africa see a rare chance to close a funding gap that has left the continent’s football underdeveloped for generations. The difference in perspective is not accidental. It is the product of unequal resources, unequal commercial power, and a decade of relationship-building between FIFA’s leadership and African football’s decision-makers.
As the September deadline approaches, the world will discover whether loyalty and cash prove stronger than the growing chorus of opposition. For now, Africa remains the most plausible source of support for a plan that has united almost everyone else against it.
About The Author
