A new fight over the game’s finances
Football’s biggest institutions are now locked in a dispute that is as much about control as it is about cash. FIFA president Gianni Infantino has proposed selling minority stakes in World Cup-related assets and other FIFA competitions to private investors, and the idea has triggered a swift backlash across the sport.
The plan reportedly centers on an investment vehicle called Thrive Eternal, led by Joshua Kushner. Infantino has asked FIFA’s 211 member federations to respond by September 19, creating a fast-moving decision point that has only deepened mistrust among critics.
What followed was not careful debate, but open resistance from several of football’s most influential regional bodies.
Europe draws a hard line
UEFA responded with the sharpest language and the strongest threat. The confederation, which represents all 55 of its member associations, voted unanimously to boycott FIFA events, including the World Cup, if the private investment proposal moves forward.
Its message was direct: the plan was described as having been “conceived in secret,” and UEFA insisted that the World Cup should not be treated as a commodity. That position matters because UEFA’s membership includes many of the sport’s most financially powerful leagues and clubs.
Other regions push back too
- CONCACAF rejected the proposal and criticized FIFA’s lack of transparency and short deadline.
- The Asian Football Confederation backed concerns raised by UEFA and CONCACAF and called for broader governance reform.
- Mexico said it needs more time before taking a formal position.
- Africa, South America, and Oceania have not yet held their votes.
That mix of resistance and delay leaves FIFA facing a fragmented but serious challenge. Even where there is no boycott threat, the tone from regional leaders suggests that confidence in the process is low.
FIFA stays on course
FIFA has not signaled a retreat. In a statement released Friday, the organization dismissed what it called “incorrect media reports” and said those reports had disrupted its consultation process. FIFA also made clear that it intends to continue with the proposal despite the criticism.
The internal pressure grew a day later when Carlos Cordeiro, one of Infantino’s senior advisers, resigned over the plan. His departure suggests the controversy is no longer limited to outside opposition; it is also creating friction inside FIFA itself.
What is at stake next
The timing makes the dispute especially sensitive. The FIFA Under-20 Women’s World Cup in Poland next month could become the first real test of whether the political fight turns into an actual boycott threat. If tensions harden before then, the tournament may become a public measure of how far the split has gone.
There is also a larger political consequence. Infantino was expected to move toward a fourth term as FIFA president through 2031, with candidates due to declare by November 18 ahead of a March vote in Rabat. After this week’s backlash, that path looks less secure than it did just days ago.
For now, the dispute has exposed a central question: whether football’s global leadership is trying to modernize its finances, or simply opening the door to private influence over the sport’s most valuable competitions.