Privatization Discussions of Commercial Rights for FIFA Events

The debate over the privatization of FIFA’s commercial rights refers to the international controversy surrounding a plan—announced to the public by the International Federation of Association Football (FIFA) on July 28, 2026—that calls for the establishment of a new commercial entity named FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE).

As part of this plan, FIFA announced that it intends to establish a new subsidiary—valued at approximately $20 billion—to manage the commercial rights to tournaments such as the Men’s and Women’s World Cups and the Club World Cup, and to raise up to $4.2 billion by selling minority, non-controlling stakes in the company to private investors. The plan was first reported by the British newspaper The Times^【1】 and was subsequently confirmed by the Financial Times^【2】 and other international media outlets. The investor group is expected to be led by Thrive Eternal (Thrive Capital), an investment firm owned by Joshua Kushner, the brother of Jared Kushner, U.S. President Donald Trump’s son-in-law. It has been reported that FIFA sought advice from JPMorgan and former Liberty Media executive Greg Maffei during the process. The plan has sparked strong backlash from numerous organizations, politicians, and the soccer community, particularly the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA).

The announcement dated July 28, 2026, has been described as Infantino’s second attempt to strike a multibillion-dollar deal with private equity during his eleven-year tenure as FIFA president. In 2018, Infantino proposed a 12-year, $25 billion deal with Japan-based SoftBank to create new global competitions, including an expanded Men’s Club World Cup. It was assessed that this proposal was funded by Saudi Arabia. The initiative faced strong resistance from parties—led by UEFA—who perceived it as a threat to their own prized assets, the Champions League and the European Championship, and ultimately failed.

It has been reported that Infantino forged closer ties with Saudi Arabian soccer and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman during this process. It has been noted that Saudi Arabia will host the 2034 World Cup and that the expanded Men’s Club World Cup, held last year in the United States, was largely financed by Saudi Arabia.

The first reports regarding FIFA’s new commercial restructuring plan were made public via the British newspaper The Times prior to July 28, 2026. The Financial Times also published detailed reports on the subject during the same period. Following these reports, FIFA issued an official statement on July 28, 2026, sharing the details of the plan with the public. It was reported that FIFA President Gianni Infantino presented the details of the plan to members on July 18, 2026, at a meeting held in Manhattan before the World Cup final, which was attended by member federations of FIFA. At the meeting, Infantino told members that they would “unlock the commercial potential and opportunities that FIFA possesses.” It was noted that members of the FIFA Council were excluded from the decision-making process and were not informed of the plan before its public announcement.

It is noteworthy that the plan was made public immediately after the conclusion of the 2026 World Cup, which FIFA co-hosted with the United States, Canada, and Mexico. The tournament concluded on July 19, 2026, with Spain defeating Argentina in the final. It has been reported that FIFA generated an unprecedented level of revenue from this tournament.

According to FIFA’s statement, the new company, FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE), is designed to serve as a subsidiary that will manage the commercial operations of FIFA tournaments—including the Men’s and Women’s World Cups and the Club World Cup—such as broadcast rights, sponsorship agreements, ticketing, and licensing. FIFA has stated that the company will “consolidate” its commercial and event operations. FIFA’s statement emphasized that all authority regarding the governance of soccer, competition rules, the international calendar, and sporting decisions will remain under FIFA’s direct control. FIFA stated that it will retain a majority stake in the new company and, through its sole control over FFE, will preserve its exclusive authority over the governance of soccer.

According to FIFA’s plan, a minority stake ranging from 20 to 30 percent within FFE is to be sold to private investors. It has been reported that the company’s initial valuation has been set at approximately $20 billion. It has been announced that FIFA aims to raise up to $4.2 billion from this investment by 2026. It has been reported that FIFA’s 211 member federations will collectively hold approximately a 20 percent stake, with each federation receiving shares valued at approximately $20 million. It has been noted that member federations may choose to retain these shares or sell them to generate revenue.

The organization expected to lead the investor group is Thrive Eternal, a “permanent capital” investment firm founded by Joshua Kushner. Joshua Kushner is known to be the brother of Jared Kushner, U.S. President Donald Trump’s son-in-law. FIFA has also confirmed that Jared Kushner is not directly involved in this investment. According to sources, it was assessed that his direct participation as an investor would be viewed as politically more sensitive due to his long-standing relationship with Infantino and his role in the successful bid process to host the 2026 World Cup in the United States. It has been reported that FIFA received financial advisory services from JPMorgan during the process, and that Greg Maffei, a former Liberty Media executive, also served as an advisor to FIFA.

FIFA has announced that, if the plan is approved, each of its 211 member associations will be provided with access to up to $20 million in capital on a one-time basis. Under FIFA’s previous commitment, member associations were to receive $8 million in development funds during the 2027–2030 commercial cycle; under the new plan, this amount is projected to increase to $20 million, and then to $22 million and $24 million, respectively, in subsequent cycles. It was also noted that annual payments to member federations will increase from $2 million to $5 million during the 2027–2030 period. FIFA stated that the funds collected under this framework will be allocated to soccer development programs, infrastructure investments, technical training, national teams, grassroots soccer, and women’s soccer. In its statement, FIFA stated that “all net proceeds from the FFE will be reinvested in soccer worldwide.”

FIFA President Gianni Infantino made the following statement on the matter: "Soccer is the world’s most popular sport and an extraordinary driver of human and social development. Certain segments of the game have transformed this popularity into extraordinary commercial value, and we celebrate this success and want it to continue, because it elevates the entire game. Our job is to ensure that the rest of soccer grows alongside this: FIFA exists to support sustainable, inclusive development in every corner of the world.” Infantino also noted that the plan signifies the “democratization of soccer worldwide” and announced that a consultation process on the matter has been launched.

Regarding claims that Infantino would assume the role of “commissioner” at the helm of the new company if the plan were approved, FIFA stated that “this was never discussed.” FIFA’s statement further included the following: “However, the FIFA president and the FIFA executive committee will, and must, play leading roles in this company—should it be approved—for the benefit of member associations, in a manner consistent with FIFA’s statutes and regulations, and such that the company will always remain under the control of a FIFA affiliate.”

The Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) has issued a strongly worded official statement following FIFA’s announcement. UEFA’s statement included the following: “This crosses a line that soccer’s governing bodies must never cross. UEFA takes this extremely seriously. Every national soccer federation must do the same. Every stakeholder must do the same: leagues, clubs, players, fans, governments, and everyone concerned with the future of the game. The spirit and governance of soccer—especially regarding who stands to profit financially—are not commodities to be bought and sold with zero transparency. None of us owns soccer. This is not something FIFA can sell.”

UEFA’s statement also emphasized that it takes reports regarding FIFA’s plan “extremely seriously.” Sources have reported that UEFA is evaluating legal steps regarding the matter. It was noted that UEFA’s relations with FIFA are at an all-time low following FIFA’s suspension—at the request of President Trump—of the red card issued to U.S. player Folarin Balogun during the 2026 World Cup. It was reported that UEFA argued this intervention undermined the integrity of the World Cup.

FIFA has not responded to a request for comment regarding UEFA’s statement.

British Prime Minister Andy Burnham has spoken out against the plan in a statement posted on X. Burnham, who is known to be an Everton fan, said in his statement: “Let me put this very clearly. Soccer does not belong to investors. Soccer belongs to the people who fill the stands and stand on the sidelines every week, rain or shine. The World Cup is not a product. It is the greatest competition in world sports and has never been something anyone could sell. No matter how you dress up the deal, the moment you sell a piece of it, you’ve sold it. Soccer belongs to the fans. It always has, and it always will.”

Jamie Raskin, the senior Democratic member of the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to FIFA President Infantino on July 27, 2026—one day before the plan was announced—requesting a meeting with him as part of an ongoing investigation into the relationship between FIFA and the Trump administration. It was reported that in his letter, Raskin referred to “mounting evidence of corruption” and a possible “quid pro quo” between FIFA and the Trump administration. FIFA has previously categorically denied these allegations.

Democratic members of the House of Representatives issued a strong statement on the X platform following the announcement of the plan. The statement included the following remarks: “FIFA, Donald Trump’s favorite corruption ring in world sports, is now doing business directly with the Trump family. Apparently, the bogus Peace Prize and the massive lease agreement at Trump Tower weren’t enough; now Infantino is pulling off a bribery hat-trick by pursuing a multibillion-dollar deal to sell World Cup ownership stakes to private investors through Jared Kushner’s brother.”

It has been reported that the Norwegian Football Federation announced last week that it had reviewed an ethics complaint regarding FIFA’s suspension of the red card issued to Folarin Balogun.

Soccer finance expert Kieran Maguire told BBC Sport that the plan offers FIFA “an opportunity to make more money” and that there are “many stakeholders in the game who want a piece of the pie.” Maguire suggested that pressure could mount for a 64-team World Cup and for the tournament to be held every two years, arguing that the FFE would have to generate revenue to satisfy its shareholders.

According to FIFA’s statutes, Infantino must step down in 2031 after completing his third and final full term as president. It has been reported that, despite numerous controversies, Infantino is expected to be unanimously re-elected next year for his fourth and final term. It was noted that at the 2023 meeting in Rwanda, where Infantino was unanimously reelected, he implied that any CEO who achieved similar financial results would be kept in office indefinitely.

It has been reported that a CEO-like “commissioner” role could be created for Infantino within the newly established FFE company. According to sources, it is expected that Infantino will take the helm of FFE as a “commissioner” following the end of his current presidential term, and it has been suggested that this role would carry a salary equivalent to that of National Football League (NFL) Commissioner Roger Goodell—approximately $64 million annually—which is roughly ten times Infantino’s current salary. According to FIFA’s financial disclosures, Infantino’s current annual income totals approximately $6 million, consisting of a base salary of about $3.3 million and a performance bonus of about $2.8 million. FIFA has stated that such an arrangement “has never been discussed.”

For FIFA’s plan to take effect, it must be approved by a majority of FIFA’s 211 member associations. FIFA has declined to comment on when this approval will be put to a vote. It has been noted that the issue is likely to be discussed at the FIFA Council’s meeting this fall and subsequently during the FIFA Intercontinental Cup in December, which will feature Champions League winner Paris Saint-Germain. It has been noted that the plan could be put to a vote by all 211 members at the FIFA Congress to be held in Morocco. It has also been reported that FIFA plans to hold an online congress on November 23 to confirm the host countries for the 2031 and 2035 Women’s World Cups.

UEFA’s boycott decision is a coordinated action plan adopted by the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) and its 55 member national football associations in opposition to the International Federation of Association Football’s (FIFA) plan to open the commercial ownership rights of the World Cup and other top-tier tournaments to private investors. This decision, reached unanimously during an emergency meeting held on Thursday, stipulates that no UEFA national team will participate in any FIFA competition unless FIFA fully cancels its plan to privatize commercial rights and provides binding assurances that it will never open its events to private ownership again. It has been clarified that the scope of the decision encompasses not only men’s national teams but also women’s national teams and the FIFA Club World Cup.

The foundation of UEFA’s boycott decision lies in the belief that privatizing tournaments would harm the spirit and structural integrity of football. Official statements from UEFA emphasized that the World Cup is not an investment product but a global sporting heritage built over generations by players national teams and fans. UEFA leadership argued that the decision-making process within FIFA lacked transparency and was driven by “secret plans crafted by unidentified individuals” under an extremely accelerated timeline.

It was stated that FIFA’s proposed model for member associations amounted not to a democratic process but to a “culture of intimidation” and an “ultimatum,” forcing national federations to accept the irreversible takeover of football’s most prestigious competitions. According to UEFA, transferring commercial rights to shareholders would shift decision-making on tournament schedules and formats away from serving the sport and toward maximizing financial returns for private investors.

During the boycott process UEFA declared that the current FIFA leadership and FIFA President Gianni Infantino had lost the trust of the football family. References were made to Infantino’s 2016 campaign promises of “transparency” and it was argued that the closed-door agreements contradicted those pledges. Furthermore UEFA criticized FIFA for failing to fulfill its responsibility to use its more than five billion dollar financial reserve—funded by member associations’ contributions—for the development of football. UEFA insisted that those responsible for the process must be identified and held accountable.

The seriousness of UEFA’s boycott threat stems from European football’s sporting success and commercial power within global competitions. Although UEFA represents only one quarter of FIFA’s 211 member associations it accounts for the majority of the most successful national teams in tournaments. For example six of the eight teams that reached the quarterfinals of the 2026 World Cup and the eventual champion came from Europe; in 2022 five did and in 2018 six. UEFA strategists calculated that a World Cup without European teams would represent a massive loss of value for FIFA. At the same time European clubs expressed concern that investor demands to increase match frequency and tournament volume would damage club competitions such as the UEFA Champions League and domestic leagues.

The institutional decision taken by UEFA has been supported by Europe’s leading national federations and league governing bodies:

• English and German Football Associations: The English Football Association (FA) called for a “full and robust review” of FIFA’s leadership and governance mechanisms to ensure the global game is transparently managed. The German Football Association (DFB) demanded a comprehensive reform within FIFA to replace its current system with one in which decisions are made through open debate among governing body members and a fundamentally different culture is adopted.
• Reactions from Norway and Spain: Norwegian Football Federation President Lise Klaveness stressed that the entire framework of international football cooperation was being unnecessarily jeopardized for the sake of individual interests. Javier Tebas President of Spain’s La Liga identified the core problem as a governance model that concentrates power in a single hand and renders oversight mechanisms ineffective. He accused Infantino of attempting to buy votes ahead of the FIFA Congress and argued that he must now step down.
• World Leagues Association (WLA): The WLA which includes Europe’s top-tier leagues such as England’s Premier League Spain’s La Liga Italy’s Serie A Germany’s Bundesliga and France’s Ligue 1 rejected the plan and declared that decisions affecting the future of football cannot be made without adequate consultation.

This process has brought the fragile and strained relationship between FIFA and UEFA to its lowest point. Following this crisis which has already pitted the two organizations against each other on previous proposals such as holding the World Cup every two years UEFA and other dissenting confederations have accelerated efforts to field a candidate against Infantino in the upcoming FIFA presidential election next year.

FIFA President Gianni Infantino has been forced to abandon the plan to open the commercial ownership rights of the World Cup and other international tournaments to private investors through a newly established entity named FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE) due to the deep crisis it triggered in the football world and mounting boycott threats from confederations. An official statement issued from FIFA’s headquarters in Switzerland announced that the project would not proceed and would not be implemented.

Gianni Infantino cited the polarization and ideological divisions that emerged within global football as the reason for withdrawing the plan. He stated that all viewpoints had been carefully heard and that regardless of the level of support the plan had garnered it had become clear that it would lead to divisions contrary to its original objectives. Infantino emphasized that FIFA’s fundamental purpose has always been to unite and develop football and that his top priority remains promoting the growth of the sport in countries that need it most. He declared his aim to reunite all stakeholders around this goal. While FIFA leadership initially claimed that broad support from member associations and a consultation process with the FIFA Council and confederations were intended the overwhelming opposition prevented this process from being completed.

The cancellation of the privatization initiative was critically influenced not only by external pressure but also by internal dissent from senior levels within FIFA itself. One of the most notable developments during this period was the resignation of Carlos Cordeiro former Goldman Sachs banker who had served as Senior Advisor to the FIFA President for five years. Cordeiro publicly shared his resignation letter stating he had played no role in drafting the plan and labeled the initiative a “bad deal for football” arguing that the decision had “mortgaged the future of the sport.” He reminded the public that FIFA currently holds billions of dollars in reserves has no debt and generated 15 billion dollars in revenue between 2022 and 2026 emphasizing that selling 20 percent of football’s most valuable asset for a sum of 4.2 billion dollars was illogical.

Similarly Kevin Lamour FIFA’s Chief Operating Officer (COO) opposed the plan criticizing the lack of institutional transparency. Lamour stated that the privatization initiative was not the result of internal consensus but “the project of one individual” conducted through a non-transparent planning process and that the management team had been “misled.” In parallel with these resignations it was reported that Thrive Capital the company set to provide 4.2 billion dollars in financing for the plan had also expressed doubts about proceeding amid the intense controversy and the threat of football being split in two.

While the withdrawal of the plan was welcomed by UEFA and other confederations their criticisms of FIFA leadership have not ended.

• UEFA and the Demand for Accountability: UEFA welcomed the plan’s withdrawal as a victory for football but declared that “the story does not end here.” UEFA leadership stated that governance cannot continue through “rapidly executed secret plans crafted by unidentified individuals” and demanded that those responsible be identified and held accountable. Official statements emphasized that FIFA leadership had lost the trust of the football family and that the process of rebuilding trust with FIFA had only just begun.
• Approach of CONCACAF and AFC: The Confederation of North Central America and Caribbean Football (CONCACAF) welcomed the cancellation but described the entire process as “a unilateral and horrific act of poor governance” and an “abuse of power over service obligations” underscoring that accountability cannot be optional. The Asian Football Confederation (AFC) supported the decision and stated that the future of global football must be shaped by meaningful consultation and respect for governance structures. The Australian Football Federation also highlighted that decisions of global significance must undergo a robust consultation process.

In contrast to the sharp criticism from Europe and the Americas some football institutions have expressed support for Infantino during the cancellation process and praised his unifying role. The Moroccan Football Federation President Fouzi Lekjaa described the cancellation as a “wise step” that strengthened “unity and solidarity” in football and affirmed that Morocco would continue to support FIFA President’s initiatives for global football development. Similar support came from Qatar Football Association President Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa bin Ahmed Al Thani who acknowledged the plan’s intrinsic value but commended Infantino for prioritizing unity among member associations.

The upheaval caused by the investment plan has cast doubt on Gianni Infantino’s previously unchallenged dominance in the upcoming FIFA presidential election. Infantino who was elected by acclamation in both previous elections (2019 and 2023) without opposition is now perceived as having weakened his position due to the “loss of trust” surrounding the FFE plan and his contentious relationship with administrators. Under FIFA statutes Infantino is eligible for another four-year term and efforts to identify potential challengers have intensified.

According to media reports potential strong challengers to Infantino include Nasser al-Khelaifi President of Paris Saint-Germain and representative of the European Club Association Victor Montagliani President of CONCACAF Sheikh Salman bin Ebrahim Al Khalifa President of the AFC and UEFA President Aleksander Ceferin the most vocal opponent of the plan. The withdrawal of the plan will be recorded in FIFA history as the failure of its largest commercial initiative while simultaneously revealing the limits of institutional power balances and oversight mechanisms in international football diplomacy.

UEFA's statements regarding its initiative to open the commercial rights of FIFA events to private investors have been among the developments that elevated the debate to an institutional level within international football governance. Following the announcement of the proposal to transfer commercial rights for FIFA events—including the men’s and women’s FIFA World Cup—to private investors through FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE), UEFA issued a series of public statements. In these statements, it was emphasized that the mere withdrawal of the proposal was insufficient and that the institutional conditions raised during the process had not been fulfilled.

UEFA stated that during the initial announcement phase, the plan to sell the commercial rights of FIFA’s major events had been prepared without adequate consultation. The organization publicly declared its opposition to the initiative, asserting that the management of FIFA’s events concerns all stakeholders in football. UEFA’s statements underscored that the proposal to sell the commercial rights of FIFA’s core events constitutes a direct change to the current structure of football.

Although FIFA announced that it had withdrawn the proposal to privatize commercial rights following an emergency meeting and apologized for errors made during the process, UEFA stated that its conditions had not been met. In a statement issued by UEFA, it was clarified that the decision not to participate in FIFA events was contingent upon two fundamental conditions. The first condition was the complete withdrawal of any proposal to sell shares in FIFA’s core events. The second condition was the provision of clear assurances that similar initiatives would not be pursued in the future. UEFA declared that neither of these two conditions had been satisfied.

UEFA’s statements also confirmed that its previous stance—that confidence in FIFA President Gianni Infantino had been lost—remained unchanged. The organization stated that FIFA’s post-emergency meeting announcement had not altered UEFA’s assessment. It was further noted that public endorsements by individuals appointed by the FIFA President had no impact on UEFA’s position.

UEFA assessed that the controversy had not ended following FIFA’s public statement. The organization highlighted that fundamental questions regarding the proposal had remained unanswered. Among the issues raised by UEFA were inquiries into who was involved in drafting the proposal, whether a competitive bidding process had taken place, and whether any personal benefit had been derived from the process. FIFA’s apology did not establish any direct accountability mechanism regarding these matters; UEFA has continued to demand answers to these questions.

UEFA’s statements also included evaluations of the nature of the meeting held by the FIFA Executive Committee in Rabat. The organization noted that those present at the meeting were part of FIFA’s governing structure and therefore concluded that the meeting was insufficient to resolve the ongoing concerns. UEFA stated that the Rabat meeting failed to address the fundamental questions raised in public discourse regarding the process under scrutiny.

UEFA has also kept open the possibility of boycotting FIFA events. In its statements, it was made clear that the boycott decision would remain in effect if FIFA President remains in office and the stated conditions are not met. UEFA has publicly confirmed that its decision not to participate in FIFA events remains unchanged.

According to UEFA’s statements, the first potential application of the boycott decision could be the FIFA U-20 Women’s World Cup, scheduled to begin in Poland on 5 September 2026. The organization indicated that if no agreement is reached between the parties before this date, the event will serve as the first instance of a boycott led by UEFA. It was further noted that other FIFA events planned to include European national teams could also be affected by the boycott decision in the future.

UEFA’s statements also addressed the existing institutional mechanisms for removing the FIFA President. It was noted that FIFA consists of 211 member associations, and an extraordinary FIFA Congress can be convened only if at least 20 percent of member associations request it, and that a majority vote is required to pass a vote of no confidence. UEFA representatives are also considering the option of calling for an extraordinary meeting within the FIFA Council. UEFA emphasized the importance of securing sufficient support to activate these mechanisms.

UEFA’s statements also included information that the English Football Association had withdrawn its support for Gianni Infantino’s candidacy in the 2027 presidential election. At the same time, UEFA confirmed that it continues to maintain its decision to boycott FIFA events due to the President’s continued tenure. The organization reiterated that the mere withdrawal of FIFA’s proposal to privatize commercial rights is insufficient, as the conditions previously outlined have not been met and therefore its position remains unchanged.

UEFA’s public statements have continued even after FIFA’s apology and withdrawal of its proposal to privatize commercial rights. In its communications, UEFA has repeatedly stressed that the initiative to privatize the commercial rights of events must be fully terminated and that clear guarantees must be provided that similar initiatives will not be revived. UEFA has declared that since these conditions have not been fulfilled, it has not altered its decision to boycott events or its stance regarding the presidency of Gianni Infantino.

FIFA President Gianni Infantino sent an official letter to FIFA Council members and the presidents of all 211 member associations following the suspension of the FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE) project, outlining plans for institutional governance reform. The statement emphasized that FIFA’s democratic processes, independence, and sporting authority have never been and will never be for sale. The premature leak of the FFE project to the public before completion of official institutional procedures and approvals was acknowledged as an organizational error, which created a misleading impression that decisions had already been made and generated concern among member nations. It was clarified that the initiative never aimed to transfer sporting authority, remained merely a proposal subject to approval by the Council and member associations, and has been fully withdrawn with no possibility of future acceptance.

In the wake of the ensuing administrative tensions, a two-phase reform roadmap was presented ahead of the FIFA Council meeting scheduled for 15 October. The first phase of the reform proposal involves an independent external review of FIFA’s current governance framework for large-scale strategic initiatives, followed by the preparation of potential improvement recommendations. The second phase entails launching a direct, structured, and time-limited consultation process between the central administration in Zurich and continental confederations, member associations, and stakeholders. Through this consultation mechanism, the goal is to ensure earlier institutional involvement in major projects; clarify the mandates and responsibilities of the President, Bureau, Council, and Congress; and enhance transparency and accountability in decision-making processes.

The administrative disputes surrounding the FFE project have acquired an international legal dimension; UEFA has requested documents related to the project from U.S. courts as part of a legal proceeding initiated with Swiss authorities alleging criminal mismanagement. In discussions on corporate decision-making mechanisms, different governance models have been raised, such as whether strategic decisions should be made by consensus within the Bureau or directly submitted to the FIFA Congress. It was reiterated that any amendment to the main statutes must be approved directly by the Congress. Furthermore, it was pledged that no discriminatory treatment will be applied to any member association regardless of their stance on the FFE project. The deadline for applications for the FIFA presidential election, to be held in Rabat, the capital of Morocco, in March 2027, has been set for 18 November. In an environment where opposition groups have focused their strategies on limiting the powers of the presidency, Infantino continues to hold the position of the strongest candidate in the race.