FIFA’s World Cup plan that sparked a UEFA rift and global debate | OneFootball

An unexpected clash between FIFA and UEFA erupted in recent hours following a report by an English newspaper detailing that world football’s governing body intends to “sell stakes in the World Cup to private investors”.

The information that triggered this exchange between FIFA and UEFA was published this Tuesday by the British newspaper The Times. “FIFA president Gianni Infantino plans to sell stakes in the World Cup to private investors as part of a plan that could bring in tens of millions of pounds”, journalist Martyn Ziegler detailed in the extensive report he published.

UEFA, through its social media channels, decided to issue a “statement” following the “article in The Times.” In a brief message, which linked to the official note by the aforementioned outlet, they stated: “This crosses a line that the institutions governing football should never cross. UEFA takes this very seriously. And so should all national football associations. And so should all stakeholders: leagues, clubs, players, fans, governments and everyone concerned about the future of this sport. The soul and governance of football are not assets to be traded, especially without any transparency about who benefits financially. None of us owns football. It is not FIFA’s to sell.”

With the issue now out in the open, FIFA decided to publish a lengthy report on its website titled: “FIFA intends to expand funding for football development to more than $10 billion, subject to approval by FIFA member associations”, where it provided details of the plan that the 211 Member Associations will have to discuss.

The Times explained in its article that “the plan would lead to the creation of a company that would control FIFA’s main men’s and women’s competitions: the World Cup and the Club World Cup”, meaning it “could create pressure for both events to be expanded or held more frequently than every four years, as is currently the case”.

The outlet cited “two sources with knowledge of the talks” who said the project was discussed directly with “people close to Donald Trump’s administration.” In that context, they confirmed that “Joshua Kushner’s Thrive Capital is expected to lead the proposed investor group and that JP Morgan will be FIFA’s financial adviser on the project”. It even specified that Kushner is the younger brother of Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, who, however, would not be involved in the investment.

FIFA would distribute a “stake” worth close to $20 million to each of the organization’s 211 member associations, which could then decide whether to keep it or sell it for income. Infantino is reportedly expected to “run the company as commissioner once his final presidential term expires”, which would be in 2031.

For its part, the Switzerland-based body led by Infantino said that “the FIFA administration is exploring the possibility of integrating FIFA’s commercial rights — covering broadcasting, sponsorship, ticketing and licensing — with the operational management of FIFA tournaments through the creation of FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE)”. That is why “a consultation process has been launched following the receipt of a proposal that seeks to maximize the potential of FIFA’s broadcasting rights and sponsorships across all its men’s, women’s and youth football tournaments.”

In that context, they clarified that they will seek to “increase funding per FIFA Member Association (MA) from $8 million to $20 million for the 2027-30 cycle” through this “flagship development program” called FFE. “This funding would support infrastructure, coaching, national teams, competitions, grassroots football and women’s football,” they argued.

During a speech before the FIFA Council and member associations ahead of the World Cup final between Argentina and Spain, Infantino said he intended to “unlock the commercial potential and opportunities that FIFA has”, and added: “Football is the most popular sport in the world and an extraordinary engine of human and social development. Some aspects of the game have transformed that popularity into remarkable commercial value, and we celebrate that success and want it to continue, because it elevates the entire sport. Our job is to ensure that the rest of football grows alongside it: FIFA exists to support sustainable and inclusive development in every corner of the world.”

FIFA, according to its argument, must ensure that the sport reaches “every corner of the planet,” but to do so it must design a new structure “where the commercial side of football operates as a focused and dedicated business, whose value is shared more broadly and effectively worldwide”. “Every FIFA Member Association should have the opportunity to obtain a fair share of the available funds to shape its own future, deciding for itself rather than depending on others. This is about the democratization of football worldwide,” they stressed.

“We intend to invest heavily even in the smallest or most remote areas of the football world, places that are too often overlooked. Every FIFA Member Association, regardless of size, resources or geographic location, will have a voice and the opportunity to determine its own course. Football has become a truly global sport, so its benefits must be felt around the world,” Infantino said.

FIFA’s justification centers on the fact that teams such as Cape Verde and Curaçao had a “decade of growing support” through FIFA Forward before securing their first appearance at the 2026 World Cup. In that process, they stipulated that there could be a distribution of “more than $10 billion over the next four years” together with other “existing FIFA programs.”

In addition to the FFE Rapid Funding Initiative, they would also establish the FIFA Fast Funding Programme (FFFP), described as “an optional mechanism that would allow member associations to access additional development funding”. Under this project, each of the 211 members could “access up to $20 million in one-time capital.”

“The additional funding would come from the initial capital raising planned by FFE, amounting to $4.2 billion. This figure would be based on an implied valuation of $20 billion. Any net profits from FFE would be fully reinvested in football,” they said.

FIFA acknowledged that it “will invite third parties to make minority, non-controlling investments in FFE”, but that “such investors would be selected according to well-defined strategic, governance and long-term criteria”. They nonetheless defended the project on the grounds that the body governing world football would still “retain exclusive control of FFE through majority representation on its board and sole authority over football governance, competitions, the international match calendar, and all regulatory and sporting decisions.”

In that regard, they acknowledged that “Thrive Eternal” will be the one to “lead the proposed investor group for FFE”, but that this involvement is “subject to these final agreements and the necessary approvals.”

“Greg Maffei, CEO of BANN Ventures and previously chairman and CEO of Liberty Media during its acquisition and ownership of Formula One, has been a key commercial adviser and will continue to be involved in the creation of FFE in this next phase,” they detailed. At the same time, they acknowledged that JP Morgan “has been engaged to assist FIFA,” along with other “advisers” such as OpenEconomics to be in “contact with potential long-term investors.”

“The process is focused on assembling a geographically diverse group of investors that reflects the global nature of FIFA and football; expressions of interest received to date include investors from all the world’s major regions: Europe, the Americas, Asia and Africa,” they stated. FIFA’s president, in that case, has the “duty” to oversee the project: “External investors will only have a minority stake in FFE and will play no operational role. Likewise, they are investing in a FIFA subsidiary, not in FIFA itself”.

The Times recalled that expanding the next World Cup from 48 teams to 64 is being considered, something that was confirmed by CONMEBOL. The newspaper said that “other important figures in football consider the plan a potential ‘nuclear bomb’ for the sport.” However, it noted that meetings have already taken place between “senior FIFA officials and potential investors” who are said to have signed a “non-disclosure agreement”: investors could initially buy between 20 and 30 percent of the stakes.

FIFA’s strategy to win support, according to The Times, lies in granting individual shares to its 211 members, which would allow it to “secure their approval in the FIFA Congress and Council” because “for the smaller associations, the shares would be worth several times their annual income”.

As for Infantino’s future role in the new structure, FIFA clarified that this “has never been discussed,” but added that “the FIFA president and FIFA administration will have and should have a leading role in this entity” if it is ultimately approved. According to the British newspaper, the project could resemble the NFL, “whose commissioner, Roger Goodell, earns around $64 million a year”, which would mean “ten times more than Infantino’s income in the last fiscal year, including salary and bonuses” in that theoretical new position.

“FIFA would retain its power over international football, including, significantly, the international match calendar after 2030, but its decisions would have a huge influence on the future of the new company”, journalist Martyn Ziegler analyzed. “If the new project goes ahead, there are concerns that private investors will push for the men’s World Cup to be held in countries where commercial success can be maximized. There is also concern that similar pressure could arise for the Club World Cup to be held in the Persian Gulf in order to increase its revenue. This would mean disrupting European domestic leagues, as happened with the 2022 Qatar World Cup, since the summer in the Gulf is too hot to stage the tournament,” added the specialist, who is the head of the newspaper’s sports desk.

This article was translated into English by Artificial Intelligence. You can read the original version in 🇪🇸 here.