FIFA private investors could soon acquire a minority stake in a new company controlling the commercial operations of the World Cup and other international tournaments. The proposal has triggered strong opposition from UEFA and concerns among football federations in Denmark, Sweden and North America over transparency, governance and the growing influence of private capital on the sport.
Under the plan announced on 28 July, FIFA would establish FIFA Forward Enterprise, or FFE, a subsidiary combining the organisation’s commercial rights and tournament operations. Its activities would include broadcasting agreements, sponsorships, licensing, ticket sales and the operational delivery of competitions such as the men’s and women’s World Cups and the Club World Cup.
FIFA estimates the new company could be valued at USD 20 billion (€17.6 billion). It intends to raise as much as USD 4.2 billion (€3.7 billion) by selling minority, non-controlling interests to external investors later in 2026. The euro conversions are based on the European Central Bank’s reference rate of 27 July.
FIFA private investors would hold a minority stake
FIFA has stressed that investors would not purchase shares in the governing organisation itself. Instead, they would acquire part of FIFA Forward Enterprise, while FIFA would retain a controlling majority on its board.
According to the organisation, private shareholders would have no authority over tournament formats, the international match calendar, football regulations or sporting decisions. FIFA would remain exclusively responsible for governing international football.
The project still requires support from a majority of FIFA’s 211 member associations, as well as regulatory approval from the FIFA Council. FIFA has presented the structure as a consultation proposal rather than a completed transaction.
The international governing body is working with the US investment bank J.P. Morgan. The prospective investor group is expected to be led by Thrive Eternal, a long-term investment company connected to Thrive Capital and its founder Joshua Kushner. FIFA says it is seeking a geographically diverse group of investors from Europe, the Americas, Asia and Africa.
More funding for FIFA member federations
FIFA President Gianni Infantino has described the proposal as part of the global “democratisation of football”. The organisation argues that the commercial value generated by international competitions should be distributed more widely among its members.
The capital raised through FFE would finance a new FIFA Fast Forward Programme. Each member association could receive up to USD 20 million (€17.6 million) in optional, one-off funding for infrastructure and other major projects.
FIFA also proposes increasing its regular development allocation for each federation from USD 8 million (€7 million) during the current four-year cycle to USD 20 million between 2027 and 2030. The amount would rise again during subsequent cycles.
The organisation says the money could support stadiums, national training centres, coaching programmes, grassroots competitions, national teams and women’s football. Together with other programmes, FIFA expects its development spending to exceed USD 10 billion over the next four years.
UEFA says football is not an asset to sell
UEFA has responded unusually forcefully, accusing FIFA of crossing a boundary that football institutions should never cross.
The European governing body argued that the sport’s identity and governance cannot be treated as commercial assets. It also criticised what it described as a lack of transparency over the investors involved and the parties that could benefit financially from the structure.
“None of us owns football. It is not FIFA’s to sell,” UEFA said.
The dispute reflects the increasingly strained relationship between FIFA and UEFA. The two organisations have repeatedly disagreed over the expansion of the World Cup, the enlarged Club World Cup and pressure on the international football calendar.
FIFA’s proposal also recalls an earlier attempt by Infantino to attract major external investment. In 2018, discussions over a reported USD 25 billion financing project involving international competitions were abandoned after opposition and demands for greater scrutiny from members of the FIFA Council.
Danish and Swedish federations raise concerns
The Danish Football Association (Dansk Boldspil-Union, DBU) has supported UEFA’s call for closer examination of the proposal.
DBU chief executive Erik Brøgger Rasmussen said the federation had initially learned about the project through media reports. He described the potential consequences for international football as far-reaching and said the organisation needed complete information about both the substance of the proposal and the process behind it before taking a position.
The Swedish Football Association (Svenska Fotbollförbundet, SvFF) has also said it shares UEFA’s legitimate concerns. The Swedish federation intends to examine the structure carefully before deciding whether to support it.
The reactions are particularly important because FIFA needs backing from most of its member federations. The proposal’s promise of considerably higher development funding could appeal to smaller associations, while European federations are likely to demand stronger governance guarantees.
Concacaf says it was not consulted
Opposition is not limited to Europe. The Confederation of North, Central America and Caribbean Association Football, Concacaf, said it learned about the detailed plan through the media and FIFA’s subsequent press release.
Concacaf expressed “deep concern” that the proposal had been developed and made public before discussions with the relevant governing bodies and stakeholders. The criticism is significant because Concacaf President Victor Montagliani is also a FIFA vice-president and played a central role in organising the 2026 World Cup in the USA, Canada and Mexico.
British Prime Minister Andy Burnham, who took office on 20 July 2026, has also criticised the project. He argued that football belongs to supporters and local communities rather than investors, and that the World Cup should not be treated simply as a commercial product.
The central issue is control over future revenues
FIFA is not formally proposing the privatisation of football governance. The organisation would retain control of sporting rules and decisions, while external investors would hold only a minority interest in its commercial subsidiary.
However, critics argue that separating governance from commercial operations may not prevent financial interests from influencing future choices. Investors seeking long-term returns could favour more matches, larger tournaments, higher ticket prices or formats capable of producing greater broadcasting and sponsorship revenue.
The debate will therefore concern more than the percentage of shares offered to private investors. FIFA’s member associations will have to decide whether the new capital can strengthen football development without creating permanent commercial pressures around the World Cup and the organisation’s other competitions.
The positions taken by DBU and SvFF suggest that Nordic federations will approach the proposal cautiously. Their eventual votes could depend on the identity of the investors, the guarantees protecting sporting independence and the level of scrutiny applied to FIFA Forward Enterprise.
