FIFA’s World Cup Plan Has Put a Price on Trust

FIFA wants to turn the World Cup’s commercial pull into a separate company. UEFA’s answer is that the price of doing so may be trust.

The dispute is not over whether football generates serious money. FIFA expects revenue of $15bn for the 2022-26 cycle, with most of it coming from television rights, sponsorship, ticketing and hospitality sales tied to the men’s World Cup. The harder question is whether a governing body can invite outside capital into the commercial machine without changing the character of the institution running it.

FIFA says it can. UEFA says the proposal reaches a boundary football’s governing institutions should leave alone. That disagreement matters because FIFA’s plan asks its 211 member associations to weigh a much larger development pot against an unfamiliar commercial structure, while accepting FIFA’s assurances that sporting authority remains untouched.

The promise is bigger funding, not a sale of FIFA

FIFA has outlined plans to create FIFA Forward Enterprise, a FIFA-owned commercial subsidiary that would combine commercial rights and tournament delivery. Broadcasting, sponsorship, ticketing and licensing would sit alongside the operational running of FIFA competitions.

Subject to approval by the member associations, FIFA says the structure could deliver more than $10bn in football development funding over the next four years. External investors could buy minority, non-controlling stakes in the subsidiary, raising up to $4.2bn. FIFA puts the proposed value of FFE at about $20bn.

That distinction is central to FIFA’s case. Investors would take a stake in a subsidiary rather than in FIFA itself, according to the governing body. FIFA also insists it would keep sole control over football governance, competitions, the international match calendar and every sporting and regulatory decision.

For Gianni Infantino, the stated purpose is redistribution. He has said the next stage of growth needs a structure in which the commercial side operates as a focused business and its value is shared more widely. FIFA’s argument is that the game’s commercial success should support federations and communities in every part of the world, including the smallest and most remote member associations.

Those are large ambitions attached to a very specific proposal. FIFA says its existing budget would provide $8m to each member association through the FIFA Forward programme for the 2027-2030 cycle. The proposed arrangement would raise that to $20m per association. Associations could also access up to $20m in optional, one-off funding for major projects through a new FIFA Fast Forward Programme.

UEFA’s objection is about the line being crossed

UEFA has not disputed that development money is valuable. Its objection is to the route FIFA is considering. In its statement, UEFA said the “soul and governance of football are not assets to trade”, framing the proposal as a question of principle rather than a disagreement over accountancy.

The European body also cited “zero transparency as to who gains financially”. That is the sharpest part of its criticism. A minority stake may leave FIFA with formal control, yet the presence of outside investors creates an obvious demand for clarity about the counterparties, the value placed on the business and the financial interests involved.

FIFA has responded by saying it is beginning a consultation process after receiving a proposal that remains under review. It has confirmed that JP Morgan is acting as financial adviser and will continue to support its analysis. Thrive Capital, led by chief executive Josh Kushner, is expected to lead the proposed investor group; FIFA says Jared Kushner is not an investor.

The facts presently available therefore describe a proposal, not a completed transaction. FIFA says its member associations and the FIFA Council will be the sole decision-makers on whether to proceed. The plans need majority backing from the associations as well as Council approval before implementation.

Control is the reassurance; process is the test

FIFA’s defence rests on retaining control. It says both the president and the administration would need leading roles in any new entity so that FIFA kept control of a subsidiary in accordance with its statutes and regulations, for the benefit of member associations. It has also rejected suggestions that Infantino could become chief executive when his final presidential term ends, saying the possibility has never been discussed.

Yet governance is more than the final vote on a sporting rule. UEFA’s criticism points to the process before that vote: how a deal is designed, who benefits, and how clearly member associations can inspect the arrangement before they are asked to approve it. FIFA’s promise of democratic approval gives associations formal power. It does not itself answer every question about the commercial proposal placed before them.

That is why the phrase “minority, non-controlling” does so much work. It is meant to mark a firm separation between investment in a commercial vehicle and influence over football. UEFA is arguing that the separation is insufficient if the World Cup’s value becomes something external investors can buy into at all.

Neither position is frivolous. FIFA is a not-for-profit organisation owned by its 211 member associations and has tax-free status in Switzerland, where it is based. Its proposal presents commercial restructuring as a means of increasing what those associations can spend on football. UEFA’s warning is that ownership and governance carry obligations that do not disappear merely because the stake is small.

The World Cup is doing the heavy lifting

Infantino told all 211 associations on 18 July that, after the success of the 2026 World Cup, FIFA’s priority was to “unleash the commercial potential” available to it. The wording identifies the asset at the centre of the argument: the World Cup is not being sold as a tournament, according to FIFA, but its commercial rights sit within the proposed enterprise.

FIFA’s projected revenue tells the same story. It expects $15bn across 2022-26, with the men’s World Cup accounting for most of the income through its media, sponsorship, ticketing and hospitality streams. A business valued at around $20bn would therefore be built around revenue engines whose importance is already established inside FIFA’s accounts.

That can make the development promise attractive to associations with fewer resources. FIFA says every member association should have the chance to seek a fair share of available funding and determine its own future, rather than rely on others. Its proposal would increase the standard Forward allocation per association from the currently budgeted $8m to $20m for 2027-2030.

It can also make UEFA’s concern harder to dismiss as a territorial row. The more commercially potent the World Cup becomes, the more carefully FIFA must explain how value, control and accountability will coexist inside the new company. The proposal is asking football to believe that monetising a commercial subsidiary can deepen the game’s development mission without weakening the independence that mission depends on.

A vote can settle the proposal, not the underlying argument

FIFA says it is open to innovative projects that could boost development around the world and has called inaccurate the suggestion that staff have signed non-disclosure agreements. It will present the plans to member associations and the FIFA Council. That process is the immediate next step, and it gives the associations a direct decision.

The wider issue will survive any vote. If the plan passes, FIFA will need to demonstrate that its sole control over governance and sporting decisions is meaningful in practice while external investors hold a minority interest in the commercial operation. If it fails, the difference between the current $8m allocation and the proposed $20m will remain the proposal’s most persuasive unanswered question.

UEFA has made the tension plain. FIFA sees commercial value as a route to broaden football’s benefits. UEFA sees a governance risk in treating that value as investable. The member associations now have to decide whether those ideas can occupy the same structure.

Research: This article uses the archived evidence supplied for this story. Story inspiration: Sky Sports' original report.