Sometimes you can never be sure whether statements from Gianni Infantino are genuine or have been created in a studio just to get people’s backs up.
The latest missive in FIFA’s post-World Cup thinking-out-loud is a proposal to sell up to 20 per cent of a new company controlling the commercial and operational delivery of its competitions, which is being presented as a development revolution. It may also become the most consequential test yet of private capital’s role in global sport.
Under the plan, FIFA Forward Enterprise would combine broadcast, sponsorship, ticketing and licensing rights with tournament operations. FIFA says the business would have an initial equity valuation of $20 billion and could raise up to $4.2 billion from minority, non-controlling investors. FIFA would retain control over sporting rules, competitions and the international calendar.
The sales pitch to the 211 national associations is formidable. Every association could apply for an immediate allocation of up to $20 million for special projects. Regular FIFA Forward funding would rise to $20 million for 2027–30, $22 million for 2031–34 and $24 million for 2035–38. In theory, that creates potential access of up to $86 million for the FAI across the period.
For football on the island of Ireland, where infrastructure remains the defining strategic challenge, the attraction is obvious. Even a portion of that funding could transform academy facilities, regional centres, coaching, women’s football and grassroots participation. Imagine the appeal in countries less well off, each one of whom has the same vote as anyone else in FIFA’s Governance model.
The question is what football gives away in exchange.
An investor does not need authority over team selection or the Laws of the Game to influence a competition. Shareholder protections, board representation, information rights, dividend expectations and exit provisions can all shape commercial decision-making. A shareholder seeking growth will naturally favour more inventory, premium ticketing, commercially attractive hosts and competitions capable of delivering predictable media value.
Rugby’s Journey on the Same Path.
CVC paid up to £365 million for a one-seventh interest in Six Nations Rugby. It also acquired 28 per cent of the PRO14 commercial business, now the United Rugby Championship, while the unions retained majority ownership and formal responsibility for sporting regulation.
Those transactions were important to Irish rugby. The IRFU subsequently recorded €44.6 million connected with the CVC and Six Nations deal, but it also acknowledged the permanent consequence: a 14 per cent reduction in its future Six Nations and Autumn Nations Series income.
That is the central lesson. An upfront payment can rescue balance sheets, fund facilities or accelerate growth. But it is an advance against future value, not free money. Once the capital has been spent, the investor’s entitlement remains.
The comparison does not mean FIFA should reject private investment. FIFA is commercially powerful and could negotiate from strength. A specialist partner could improve data, digital distribution, sponsorship sales and the global presentation of women’s and youth competitions.
It does mean that the proposed safeguards matter more than the headline valuation.
You would expect FIFA to publish the independent basis for the $20 billion figure, the investors’ precise economic rights, dividend arrangements, board representation, and exit options. There should be restrictions on debt within FFE, protection against tournament expansion driven primarily by investor returns and a clear right for FIFA to buy back the stake.
A fixed-term licence or revenue participation may be safer than permanent equity. It could reward investors for building the business while ensuring that full ownership ultimately returns to football.
The voting process also requires scrutiny. The associations deciding whether to approve the structure are the same associations being offered potentially transformative funding from its proceeds. That does not invalidate their decision, but it makes independent financial and governance assessment essential.
FIFA’s proposal contains a genuine opportunity to redistribute World Cup wealth. It also risks transferring part of football’s most valuable inheritance to investors whose first obligation will be to their own capital.
UEFA Leads Fierce Opposition to Plan
The initial response to FIFA’s proposals has been unusually immediate and confrontational, with UEFA accusing the world governing body of crossing a line that football institutions should never cross.
UEFA said the “soul and governance” of football were not assets to be traded and argued that FIFA had provided no transparency over who might benefit financially. Its statement urged national associations, leagues, clubs, players, supporters and governments to take the proposal seriously, declaring: “None of us are the owners of football. It is not FIFA’s to sell.”
The criticism is directed not only at the principle of private ownership, but also at the process. The full shareholder agreement, investor protections, potential dividend structure, board composition and exit arrangements have not been published.
The involvement of Thrive Eternal has added a political dimension. FIFA says the investment vehicle founded by Joshua Kushner is expected to lead the proposed investor group, with JP Morgan advising FIFA and former Liberty Media chief executive Greg Maffei providing commercial advice. FIFA insists that outside shareholders would have no operational role and would be investing in a FIFA subsidiary rather than FIFA itself.
British Prime Minister Andy Burnham also criticised the proposal, arguing that the World Cup was not a product to be sold and that selling even a portion represented selling out the competition.
FIFA President Gianni Infantino has framed the initiative very differently. He argues that football’s commercial success should be shared more widely and describes the proposal as the “democratisation of football worldwide”. FIFA says every net benefit generated by the new company would be reinvested into the sport.
The next reaction that matters will come from FIFA’s 211 member associations.
For many smaller and medium-sized federations, the offer of up to $20 million in immediate project funding could outweigh broader concerns over ownership and governance. That creates the prospect of a sharp divide between European opposition and associations elsewhere that see the proposal as a once-in-a-generation development opportunity.
The FAI, Irish Football Association, IRFU and United Rugby Championship are full members of Sport for Business.
If you would like to be part of the Sport for Business community and see your organisation in our content, on our stages, and in the conversation happening every day around the commercial world of Irish Sport, email us today and let’s see what is possible.
ABOUT SPORT FOR BUSINESS
Sport for Business is Ireland’s leading platform focused on the commercial, strategic and societal impact of sport. It connects decision-makers across governing bodies, clubs, brands, agencies, and public institutions through high-quality content, events, and insights.
Sport for Business explores how sport drives economic value, participation, inclusion and national identity, and how your story can be part of ours.
Through analysis, storytelling and convening the sector, it helps leaders understand trends, share best practices, and make better-informed decisions. It positions sport not just as entertainment but as a vital contributor to Ireland’s social and economic fabric.
Find out more about becoming a member today.
Or sign up for our Daily Sport for Business Snapshot email bulletins to get a flavour of the material we cover.
Sign up for our News Bulletins here.
