FIFA World Cup private investment plan explained: Why teams are vowing to boycott the controversial scheme

FIFA is not new to controversy. In the last decade, the international soccer association has faced bribery allegations, corruption scandals, and backlash over questionable host nation decisions.

But even by FIFA’s standards, the association’s latest proposal might be pushing it too far—and member states are not staying quiet. Here’s what to know.

What exactly was proposed?

A plan led by controversial FIFA president Gianni Infantino would create a new company to govern the commercial operations of FIFA tournaments, including the World Cup.

But the proposal didn’t end there. It included plans to sell a minority stake in the new company to private investors, leading to uproar from member states and international soccer bodies.

“We unanimously and unequivocally reject FIFA’s proposal to transfer ownership interests in the World Cup and other FIFA competitions to private investors,” the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) said in a statement, announcing that its 55 members will boycott all future FIFA competitions if the proposal passes.

The UEFA represents some of the world’s most popular federations, including England, Portugal, France, and the World Cup’s latest winner, Spain.

The statement continued: “The World Cup cannot be treated as an investment product. It is one of football’s greatest sporting legacies.”

“Unlocking commercial value”

The FIFA currently operates as a nonprofit association based in Switzerland, with member associations (MAs) getting voting rights on decisions for the international federation.

But the new plan would delegate events and commercial deals like licensing and ticketing to a newly formed subsidiary called FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE).

According to FIFA’s announcement, the new plan is aimed at “unlocking commercial value that has previously gone uncaptured.” But opponents are concerned about FIFA selling a stake in the FFE, particularly about who will be joining the table.

Among the proposed investors is Thrive Eternal, set to lead the investor group upon approval, FIFA says. Thrive is a capital holding company led by Josh Kushner, brother of Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law. (Infantino has already faced scrutiny over his close ties with the president.)

Global opposition is growing

Since the proposed plan was announced, more soccer organizing bodies and federations have joined in on expressing their disapproval of selling off stakes in the game.

The Confederation of North, Central America and Caribbean Association Football (CONCACAF)—which includes this year’s host nations, the U.S., Mexico, and Canada—has also rejected Infantino’s plan.

In a statement posted on social media, CONCACAF said it convened a meeting with presidents of its 41 members, and shared “deep concerns about the lack of due process surrounding the proposal, the artificially short deadline imposed, and the absence of any review or approval by the relevant FIFA governance bodies.”

Additionally, the organization questioned the need for private investment at the tail end of history’s most profitable World Cup.

The Asian Football Confederation (AFC) has also spoken out in solidarity with the CONCACAF and UEFA.

“AFC calls upon FIFA to undertake an urgent review of its governance and decision-making framework to ensure that proposals of global significance are developed through proper consultation, meaningful engagement, and appropriate oversight by FIFA’s statutory bodies,” the AFC said in a statement earlier today.

What has FIFA said about the criticism?

FIFA has since responded to the overwhelming backlash in a statement. “Nobody is selling football,” the organization said. “This is not something FIFA would ever entertain.”

The statement added: “We respect the feedback and concern aired in public and reaffirm our commitment to an open and democratic consultation.⁠ Our planned consultation process was disrupted by incorrect media reports. We will proceed with this consultation process to ensure that each MA has the ability to express its vote based on facts.”

Still, FIFA has not withdrawn it’s proposal.

Is this time different?

While many FIFA controversies have gone somewhat unpunished, this particular proposal is striking a chord among governing bodies and fans, who worry about the long-lasting implications that overly commercializing the tournaments might have on the game.

“Some things are simply too important to sell,” the UEFA added. “The FIFA World Cup belongs to football. It always will. And so long as Europe has a voice, it will never be for sale.”