For almost a century, the FIFA World Cup has been more than a sporting tournament. It has been football’s most powerful global institution: a competition owned and governed by the international game, funded by broadcasting, sponsorship and commercial revenue, and presented as a shared asset of football’s 211 national associations.
Gianni Infantino now appears to be preparing the most significant change to that model in FIFA’s modern history.
Under a proposed restructuring, FIFA would place the commercial operations of its biggest competitions—including the men’s World Cup, the women’s World Cup and the Club World Cup—into a new company known as FIFA Forward Enterprise, or FFE. Private investors would then be invited to buy minority stakes in that business.
FIFA insists it would retain control. Critics argue that the distinction may matter less than FIFA claims.
The central question is no longer simply how football should make money. It is whether the commercial future of the World Cup should be partly owned by investors whose primary responsibility is to generate returns.
What Is Infantino Actually Proposing?
The proposal does not appear to involve selling the World Cup itself in the literal sense. FIFA would remain the governing body of world football and would continue to control sporting rules, tournament formats and key governance decisions.
Instead, FIFA plans to separate the commercial machinery surrounding its major competitions from the organisation’s traditional governing structure. Broadcasting rights, sponsorship, ticketing, licensing and other revenue-generating activities would be brought together under FFE, a new commercial entity.
The company is reportedly expected to begin with a valuation of around $20 billion, or approximately £15 billion. FIFA could raise as much as $4.2 billion, roughly £3.1 billion, by selling minority, non-controlling stakes to outside investors.
The structure is designed to allow FIFA to obtain a large amount of capital without surrendering formal control. In corporate language, the investors would be minority shareholders. In football language, however, the proposal would give private capital a direct financial interest in the commercial success of the World Cup and other FIFA competitions.
That is the point at which the argument becomes politically explosive.
The Promise: More Money for Global Football
Infantino has presented the proposal as a form of financial democratisation.
FIFA’s argument is that football’s wealth is unevenly distributed. Europe’s biggest leagues and clubs generate enormous commercial revenues, while many national associations depend heavily on FIFA funding. By bringing in private investment, FIFA says it could unlock additional capital and distribute more money across the global game.
Under the proposal, FIFA’s 211 member associations could be offered stakes worth around $20 million each, with participation understood to be optional. The potential value could rise in later commercial cycles.
For smaller associations, that could be a powerful incentive.
A federation with limited domestic broadcasting income might view a stake in FFE as an opportunity to secure long-term financial support. The money could be used to build training facilities, fund youth football, develop women’s competitions or improve national infrastructure.
This is the strongest argument in favour of the plan: the World Cup already generates enormous wealth, and private investment could potentially increase the amount available to countries that have historically received only a small share of football’s commercial rewards.
But critics question whether the plan would genuinely redistribute wealth—or simply turn future World Cup revenues into an asset that can be monetised today.
Why Private Investors Want a Piece of the World Cup
From an investor’s perspective, the attraction is obvious.
The World Cup is one of the most valuable and recognisable sporting properties on the planet. It attracts billions of viewers, commands enormous broadcasting fees and creates global sponsorship opportunities that few events can match.
Unlike a conventional company, the World Cup does not depend on launching a new product or persuading consumers to discover an unfamiliar brand. Its audience already exists. Its commercial value has been built over generations by national teams, players, clubs, supporters and football associations.
Private investors would therefore be buying into an established global asset with the potential for further growth.
That growth could come through higher media-rights fees, expanded sponsorship, new digital products, more commercial partnerships and larger tournaments. It could also create pressure to stage competitions more frequently or increase the number of matches.
This is where FIFA’s assurances become more complicated.
Even if investors do not control tournament rules, their financial interests could influence the commercial environment in which decisions are made. A company whose value depends on growing revenue may favour expansion. More matches can mean more broadcasting inventory. More tournaments can mean more sponsorship opportunities. Larger events can create new commercial products.
The danger, critics argue, is not necessarily that investors would dictate football policy directly. It is that football policy could gradually adapt to the financial expectations created by private ownership.
UEFA’s Warning: Football Is Not FIFA’s Property
UEFA has reacted strongly to the proposal, arguing that football’s governance and identity should not be treated as commercial assets.
Its objection goes beyond the technical question of whether FIFA retains a majority shareholding. UEFA’s broader argument is that FIFA is a custodian of football, not its owner.
The World Cup was built through the participation of national teams, the development of players by clubs, the support of fans and the contribution of football communities around the world. FIFA administers the competition, but critics argue that it does not have the moral right to turn its commercial future into a financial product without broad consultation.
UEFA has accused FIFA of crossing a major line and warned that the sport’s “soul and governance” should not be traded.
The criticism also reflects a long-running struggle over power.
Infantino has sought to expand FIFA’s influence through larger tournaments, increased funding for member associations and a more prominent role for FIFA in the commercial direction of the sport. UEFA, whose competitions already generate enormous revenues, has often resisted FIFA initiatives that could compete with or disrupt the European football calendar.
The proposed FFE structure therefore risks intensifying an existing conflict: who should control football’s most valuable competitions, and who should benefit from their growth?
The Transparency Problem
One of the most serious criticisms concerns how the plan was developed.
Reports suggest that some senior figures within football were not fully informed before the proposal became public. Critics argue that a restructuring involving the commercial future of the World Cup should have been subject to extensive consultation before being presented as a major initiative.
Questions remain about the precise ownership structure, the rights investors would receive, how profits would be distributed and what safeguards would prevent commercial interests from influencing sporting decisions.
There are also questions about who would ultimately benefit.
Potential investors reportedly include interests connected to Joshua Kushner, while JPMorgan has been linked to the financial planning surrounding the proposal.
Those connections have attracted political scrutiny because of Infantino’s highly visible relationships with figures in the United States and the wider Trump network. The existence of such relationships does not, by itself, establish wrongdoing. However, critics argue that a deal involving football’s most valuable asset must be transparent enough to prevent concerns about preferential access or conflicts of interest.
The issue is not merely who invests. It is whether the process can demonstrate that the World Cup’s commercial future is being managed in the interests of football rather than a small group of executives and investors.
Could Infantino Benefit Personally?
Another controversy concerns Infantino’s possible future role.
His current position as FIFA president is not permanent. Reports have suggested that he could eventually move into a senior leadership position within the proposed commercial company after leaving the FIFA presidency.
That possibility raises difficult questions.
If a FIFA president helps create a new commercial entity and later becomes one of its leading executives, critics may ask whether decisions made during his presidency were influenced by the prospect of a future role.
There is no evidence that such an arrangement has been finalised, and FIFA has not presented the proposal as a personal financial vehicle for Infantino. Nevertheless, the possibility of a future leadership role creates an obvious governance concern.
The issue is not only whether a conflict exists. It is whether the structure could create the appearance of one.
For an organisation with FIFA’s history of governance controversies, public trust depends heavily on clear rules, independent oversight and transparent decision-making.
A Familiar Idea in a New Form
This is not the first time Infantino has explored major private investment.
In 2018, FIFA considered a proposed $25 billion investment involving SoftBank-linked interests. The plan was connected to ambitious ideas for new global competitions but faced significant resistance and ultimately did not proceed.
The current proposal is more developed and more directly connected to FIFA’s existing commercial assets.
That difference is important.
The World Cup does not need to prove its value. It is already football’s most successful international competition. By placing its commercial operations inside a separate company, FIFA could create an investment vehicle based on revenues that are already among the most reliable in world sport.
The plan may therefore be less speculative than the 2018 proposal—but potentially more consequential.
What Could Change for Supporters?
In the short term, supporters may notice little.
FIFA would still organise the World Cup. National teams would still qualify. The trophy, tournament format and basic identity of the competition could remain unchanged.
The effects may emerge gradually.
If FFE is expected to increase its value, commercial growth could become a stronger priority. That might lead to more matches, more sponsorship, more premium ticketing, more exclusive media packages and greater pressure to expand the tournament calendar.
Supporters could also face higher costs.
The commercialisation of major sporting events often creates tension between revenue and accessibility. Investors may prefer strategies that increase income from broadcasting, hospitality and premium experiences, while fans may prioritise affordable tickets, free-to-air coverage and traditional tournament structures.
FIFA argues that outside investment would provide resources for football development. Critics fear that the financial logic of private ownership could eventually reshape the competition around the interests of investors.
Both outcomes are possible. Much would depend on the legal rights attached to the shares and the safeguards written into the company’s governance.
The Bigger Question: Who Owns Football?
The dispute is ultimately about more than corporate structure.
FIFA sees itself as the global organiser of football and argues that it has a responsibility to generate more money for its member associations. From that perspective, private investment is a tool: a way to unlock capital while retaining control.
UEFA and other critics see a deeper risk. They argue that football’s greatest competitions are collective institutions, created by generations of players, clubs and supporters. Their commercial value may be managed by governing bodies, but it should not be treated as a financial asset available for sale.
The disagreement can be expressed in two competing ideas.
FIFA’s position is that private investment could help spread football’s wealth more widely.
Its critics believe that once investors acquire a financial stake in the World Cup, the pressure to maximise returns will become part of the competition’s future—regardless of who formally controls it.
It may be time for UEFA to flex the European muscles and form an allegiance with the South Americans and move away from FIFA. However, given the courtship and arguable favouritism shown towards Argentina over the past World Cups, it may be that FIFA is heading off this move in what appears to be a long-planned coup.
Conclusion: A Financial Innovation or a Historic Surrender?
Infantino’s plan could provide billions of dollars in new funding and give smaller football associations access to resources they could never generate independently.
It could also create a more commercially efficient organisation capable of expanding football’s global reach.
But the risks are substantial.
The World Cup is not simply a business. It is a cultural institution whose value depends on public trust, sporting integrity and the belief that national teams compete within a shared global system.
Selling minority stakes may not mean surrendering control. Yet ownership changes incentives, and incentives can change institutions. FIFA’s proposal may therefore mark a turning point. If the plan succeeds, the World Cup could become the centre of a new model in which global football remains formally governed by FIFA but becomes increasingly dependent on private capital and their own interests.
The question facing football is not whether the World Cup should make money. It already makes extraordinary amounts. The question is whether the future profits of the world’s game should belong solely to football—or whether a portion should now be shared with private investors.
How FIFA answers that question may shape the World Cup forever. Selling FIFA to private investors means only the highest bidders will host the World Cup and only the elite of the elite will be able to afford to sit at the table. The integrity of the game is in terminal danger.
