FOLLOW US

The proposed FIFA World Cup stake sale has triggered a global revolt, including a threatened European boycott and the resignation of one of FIFA President Gianni Infantino’s senior advisers.

The plan would place broadcasting, sponsorship, ticketing, licensing and tournament operations inside a new commercial subsidiary valued at $20 billion. FIFA could raise as much as $4.2 billion by selling minority interests to outside investors.

FIFA insists investors would not control soccer rules or competitions. Critics argue that even a minority stake would give private financiers a permanent claim on revenue generated by the World Cup and other tournaments.

FIFA Wants to Create a $20 Billion Company

The proposed company, FIFA Forward Enterprise, would consolidate FIFA’s commercial rights and the operational delivery of its tournaments.

Those assets would include broadcast agreements, corporate sponsorships, licensing, ticket sales and the business operations surrounding men’s, women’s and youth competitions. FIFA would remain the majority owner and retain authority over tournament formats, match calendars, regulations and other sporting decisions.

Outside investors could acquire up to 20% of the subsidiary. FIFA describes the interests as minority and non-controlling, but its public announcement does not disclose the full proposed investor rights, board arrangements or provisions governing a future resale.

That distinction is important. FIFA is not proposing to sell ownership of the governing body itself, but it is considering selling part of the business responsible for monetizing its most valuable events.

Member Associations Could Receive Up to $40 Million

Infantino is presenting the plan as a way to dramatically expand soccer development funding across FIFA’s 211 member associations.

Each association could receive an optional $20 million for infrastructure and other special projects through a new FIFA Fast Forward Programme. FIFA would also increase regular Forward funding for the 2027 through 2030 cycle from the currently budgeted $8 million to $20 million per association.

Reuters reported that Infantino told members they could receive $40 million each if they approved the proposal by September 19. FIFA says the money would support stadiums, training centers, coaching, national teams, grassroots programs and women’s soccer.

Critics see the funding offer as pressure on smaller associations that rely heavily on FIFA support. FIFA argues that the plan would give every country, regardless of size or wealth, a larger share of the sport’s global commercial value.

A Kushner-Linked Fund Could Lead the Investors

FIFA says Thrive Eternal is expected to lead the proposed investor group, subject to approval and final agreements.

Thrive Eternal is connected to Thrive Capital founder Joshua Kushner. He is the brother of Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law.

The family connection has intensified political scrutiny around the proposal, particularly because Infantino developed a highly visible relationship with Trump during the 2026 World Cup. The relationship alone does not establish that the administration directed the deal or that Joshua Kushner committed any wrongdoing.

However, critics want FIFA to explain how investors were selected, whether the opportunity was competitively offered and what financial or governance rights they would receive. Carlos Cordeiro raised those same questions when announcing his resignation.

European Nations Threaten a FIFA Boycott

UEFA’s 55 national associations voted unanimously to boycott FIFA competitions if the organization proceeds with the private investment plan.

That threat could affect the Under-20 Women’s World Cup in Poland as early as September. It could later extend to senior World Cup competitions and qualifying events if neither side backs down.

Concacaf, which governs soccer in North America, Central America and the Caribbean, also rejected the proposal. The Asian Football Confederation then joined UEFA and Concacaf in expressing opposition, although neither Concacaf nor the AFC formally matched Europe’s boycott threat.

Together, the three confederations represent 143 of FIFA’s 211 member associations. FIFA says it will not establish the new company without majority support, meaning the plan cannot survive if those associations remain united.

Individual national associations could still break from their confederations. Mexico said it would independently review the proposal, while the president of the Czech association suggested FIFA’s plan could produce benefits.

Senior Adviser Resigns Over the Deal

The opposition moved inside FIFA on Friday when Carlos Cordeiro resigned as Infantino’s senior adviser.

Cordeiro, a former U.S. Soccer president and banker, said he had no role in developing the plan and opposed it unequivocally. He called the proposal a “bad deal for football” and accused FIFA of mortgaging the sport’s future without a compelling reason.

He also questioned why FIFA needed to sell a permanent stake when the organization already holds significant debt-free reserves. Cordeiro asked whether FIFA conducted a competitive process, what oversight would exist and who would ultimately benefit.

His departure carries additional weight because he advised Infantino beginning in 2021 and also served as a senior adviser to the White House task force overseeing the 2026 World Cup. His resignation places pressure on Infantino from someone who worked inside both FIFA and the American tournament operation.

FIFA Says Nobody Is Selling Football

FIFA has responded to the backlash by accusing some media reports of misrepresenting the proposal.

“Nobody is selling football,” the organization said while promising to continue consultations with every national association. FIFA maintains that no single confederation should prevent the remaining members from reviewing and voting on the plan.

The governing body emphasizes that investors would receive only minority interests in the commercial subsidiary. FIFA says it would maintain majority board representation and exclusive authority over sporting and regulatory decisions.

Those protections answer part of the criticism, but they do not resolve the central financial question. Minority investors would still expect returns from the company’s broadcast, ticketing, licensing and sponsorship income.

FIFA has not yet released a final transaction agreement showing how those returns would be calculated or what influence investors could exercise over commercial strategy.

Congress Is Already Examining FIFA’s U.S. Ties

The proposed FIFA World Cup stake sale is landing as congressional scrutiny of Infantino’s relationship with Trump intensifies. USA Herald previously reported on broader backlash surrounding Infantino and the 2026 World Cup, including disputes involving ticket pricing and tournament governance.

On July 26, Rep. Jamie Raskin, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, demanded records concerning FIFA’s relationship with Trump and his administration. He requested that FIFA produce the records and arrange an interview with the committee by August 9.

That letter preceded FIFA’s public announcement of the commercial subsidiary. After the proposal emerged, Raskin warned that FIFA could face a wider congressional investigation if Democrats gain control of the House following the November elections.

Raskin has accused FIFA and the Trump administration of an improper relationship. The White House has rejected similar accusations as politically motivated, and no court or government agency has found that the proposed investment arrangement is illegal.

The FIFA World Cup Stake Sale Is Not Final

The proposal remains under consultation and still requires support from a majority of FIFA’s member associations and approval from the FIFA Council.

The boycott threats are also contingent. European teams have not yet withdrawn from a tournament, and FIFA could modify or abandon the proposal before the dispute reaches that point.

Still, the opposition has already exposed a deeper fight over who should benefit from soccer’s enormous commercial power. FIFA argues that private capital could produce more development money for every member country.

Its critics believe the organization is offering investors a permanent share of future World Cup revenue to fund benefits that FIFA could provide from its existing resources.

The dispute is therefore about more than whether investors can control a referee, change a tournament format or rewrite soccer’s rules. It is about who owns the economic value created by the teams, players and supporters who make the World Cup the most valuable event in global sports.

FIFA says it is not selling football. Before its members vote, they will have to decide whether selling part of football’s commercial engine amounts to the same thing.