Football supporters and national associations face growing uncertainty over future Fifa tournaments after the governing body said it would continue consulting on a plan to bring private investors into a new commercial arm for its major competitions.
Fifa said on Friday that “nobody is selling football” and insisted it would proceed with the proposal, despite strong opposition from Uefa and Concacaf. The issue matters beyond football politics because it could affect how World Cups are run, how development money is distributed, and whether some countries take part in future Fifa competitions if a boycott threat is carried out.
The plan, led by Fifa president Gianni Infantino, would create a new subsidiary called Fifa Forward Enterprise. Fifa says outside investors would be invited to make minority, non-controlling investments in the company, which would handle commercial activity linked to its leading events, including World Cups.
Uefa, which governs European football, voted on Thursday to boycott World Cups if the proposal is approved. Concacaf, the confederation for North and Central America and the Caribbean, said its 41 member associations had also rejected the plan. Together, Uefa and Concacaf account for 96 of Fifa’s 211 member associations.
For the proposal to pass, Fifa would need support from 106 members. That means opposition from the two confederations does not automatically stop the plan, but it makes the vote far more difficult and increases the risk of a prolonged dispute between football’s global and continental authorities.
In its statement, Fifa said the consultation had been affected by “incorrect media reports”. It said it respected concerns raised publicly and remained committed to an “open and democratic consultation”, adding that every member association should be able to vote “based on facts”.
Fifa said the new structure was intended to give all national associations “meaningful ownership” of football’s commercial opportunities in their own countries. It added that the proposal would not undermine the “spirit” or governance of Fifa or the game itself.
The proposal has attracted scrutiny because of the scale of the competitions involved and the importance of World Cup income to football worldwide. A 25-page document prepared by investment bank JP Morgan, according to the source material, sets out projections under which payments to member associations could rise to an estimated 24 million euros each in the 2035 to 2039 cycle.
The document refers to new commercial initiatives and incentive-based pay to attract senior staff. It describes the World Cup as the world’s most watched sporting event, while saying Fifa is “under-monetised”. The source material says the document does not mention the women’s game.
Mr Infantino has previously written to Fifa members saying they would receive 40 million US dollars, about £30 million, if they backed the plan. The letter set a deadline of 19 September for associations to accept the proposal if they wanted access to an initial 20 million US dollars, about £15 million.
That funding offer is a key part of why the issue is being closely watched by smaller associations. Many national federations outside Europe rely heavily on Fifa development money for facilities, coaching, youth programmes and administrative support. For those organisations, a promise of higher funding could have a direct effect on local football infrastructure.
Uefa has taken a sharply different view. In its statement, it said the World Cup should not be treated as an investment product and argued that no part of it should be handed to private investors. Uefa accused Fifa of failing in its duty to protect world football.
Concacaf said its members were concerned about the process behind the proposal, including what it described as a short deadline. It also questioned why private investment was needed after Fifa said its most recent World Cup was the most profitable in the tournament’s history.
The Asian Football Confederation has also raised concerns, saying Fifa’s approach appeared to undermine the foundations of continental football. It said it was unacceptable that it had not been properly consulted or given detailed governance, financial or legal analysis before the proposal became public.
Other confederations have yet to take a final public position. The bodies representing Africa and Oceania are expected to discuss the plan in August, while South America’s Conmebol has not yet publicly commented, according to the source material.
If the proposal is approved, Fifa says Thrive Eternal is expected to lead the investor group for the new enterprise. Thrive is an American venture capital firm founded by Joshua Kushner, the brother of Jared Kushner, who is Donald Trump’s son-in-law.
The practical effects for supporters are not immediate, but they could become significant. A dispute between Fifa and major confederations could affect future World Cup participation, qualification routes and the running of international tournaments. It could also create uncertainty for broadcasters, sponsors and fans planning travel for major events.
The timing is especially sensitive because Uefa’s boycott threat would be triggered if the funding deal is accepted. The source material notes that the deadline for associations to accept Fifa’s offer falls during a period when Fifa competitions are scheduled, including youth and women’s events. That raises questions over how a boycott would be applied in practice if the dispute escalates.
Women’s football could also be affected by the wider uncertainty. The next senior matches in a Fifa competition include Women’s World Cup play-offs in October, involving England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland among other teams. No withdrawals have been announced, but the threat of a boycott has made the position of European associations more uncertain if Fifa’s plan advances.
Support for the plan may still come from associations that see Fifa funding as essential. Rogers Byamukama of the Ugandan Football Federation told the BBC World Service that football is expensive to run in Africa and that Fifa money has helped fund infrastructure and grassroots programmes in Uganda. He said any route bringing more resources should be explored, while recognising Uefa’s right to object.
Former Football Association chief executive Mark Palios told BBC Breakfast that the dispute reflects a wider tension in football between countries and competitions that generate large revenues and smaller nations that depend on shared funding. He compared the issue with debates around the failed European Super League, where commercial power and competitive balance were also central concerns.
Fifa’s Forward development programme has already been a major source of support for member associations. In the first two cycles up to 2022, 2.8 billion US dollars, about £2.08 billion, was made available across Fifa’s 211 members. The current Fifa Forward 3.0 cycle, running from 2023 to 2026, increased funding by 30%, including 5 million US dollars for each member association and 60 million US dollars for each confederation.
Mr Infantino has led Fifa since 2016 and was re-elected unopposed in 2019 and 2023. Before the current dispute, he was widely expected to retain strong support from many national associations. However, the rejection by Concacaf and Uefa has turned the investor proposal into one of the most serious governance challenges of his presidency.
For fans, the clearest point for now is that no immediate change has been made to the ownership or running of the World Cup. The decision still depends on Fifa’s member associations. But the arguments now under way could shape how international football is financed for years, and whether the benefits of any extra money outweigh concerns about private investment in the game’s most important competitions.
