FIFA's $20 Billion Proposal: The Controversial Cash Grab

GENEVA — Gianni Infantino has put world football on the clock.

With a letter sent to all 211 member federations, the FIFA president has given them until Sept. 19 to sign up to a one-off $20 million payout, tied to a controversial plan to sell a stake in the World Cup and other flagship competitions to private investors.

Take the money, and buy into a $20 billion FIFA subsidiary part-owned by Wall Street. Refuse, and the offer drops back to the previously promised $10 million over the next four years.

The numbers are huge. So is the backlash.

A $20 Billion Gamble

Infantino’s proposal centers on a new entity, FIFA Forward Enterprise, a $20 billion subsidiary that would run FIFA’s competitions and events — from World Cups to Club World Cups — with 20% of it in the hands of private investors.

Joshua Kushner’s Thrive Capital is lined up as the anchor investor. J.P. Morgan is set to lead the process of bringing in what Infantino calls “a pool of diverse international investors.”

In his letter, seen by The Associated Press, Infantino framed it as a “singular and unique funding opportunity” and cast himself as duty-bound to present such “game-changing opportunities” to the member associations.

The carrot is clear. Over 12 years, the cash difference for federations that sign up now appears to be roughly $86 million, compared to about $36 million in existing promised funding if they reject the deal.

For dozens of smaller federations that depend on FIFA money and rarely get near a World Cup, that kind of windfall can transform infrastructure, staffing, even basic operations. For Infantino, those same votes could secure his power base for years.

But the price of that cash is what has shaken the game.

UEFA Leads the Revolt

The reaction from Europe was instant and ferocious.

UEFA, already blindsided by the revelation of the plan, branded the World Cup “not FIFA’s to sell” and moved to call an emergency online meeting of its 55 member federations, likely on Thursday. In a sharply worded statement, it said there was “significant and growing opposition” to the scheme.

Then came the line that cut through the diplomatic language.

The rushed deadline for the initial $20 million, UEFA said, “says everything you need to know about this plan. FIFA cannot continue to use our sport to enrich themselves and their friends.”

Behind that anger lies a deeper fear. A FIFA that is part-owned by private equity and driven to maximize returns will almost inevitably push for more World Cups, more Club World Cups, more teams, more games. That puts it on a collision course with competitions that UEFA and other confederations run and control themselves — the Champions League, the European Championship, Copa America, and their club tournaments across the globe.

One option is already being whispered in European corridors: boycott. UEFA-led resistance and the threat of a split played a key role in killing Infantino’s earlier push for a biennial World Cup in 2021. That weapon remains on the table.

Global Pushback, Fragile Trust

The anger is not confined to Europe.

From Kuala Lumpur, the Asian Football Confederation said it was “disappointed that a matter of such significance entered the public domain before the AFC family had been afforded the opportunity to examine and discuss it.”

In North and Central America and the Caribbean, CONCACAF went further, warning it was “deeply concerned by the lack of due process.”

The influential European Football Clubs group, which shares control of the Champions League’s commercial arm with UEFA, said it learned of the project “in the same way as most global football stakeholders — without warning and through the media.”

That pattern has become familiar under Infantino. During his 11-year presidency, he has repeatedly unveiled major, high-stakes projects with minimal consultation: a secretive $25 billion private equity proposal for expanded men’s competitions in 2018, the creation of a FIFA Peace Prize that was awarded to Donald Trump at the World Cup draw, and the abandoned push for a World Cup every two years.

Each time, resistance has come late but hard. Each time, trust has eroded a little more.

This time, the stakes are higher. Private equity doesn’t just bring money; it brings pressure to squeeze every last commercial drop from the World Cup. Sports governance expert Antoine Duval warned that such a move could “incentivize FIFA to further commodify the World Cup (think more hydration breaks and dynamic pricing) in a drive to increase its revenue.”

If that sounds like a future where football’s crown jewel is sliced into ever smaller, ever more monetized pieces, that is exactly what many fear.

Politics Enters the Pitch

The storm has spilled beyond football’s own institutions.

In Britain, Prime Minister Andy Burnham — whose government is backing a joint bid by England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland to host the 2035 Women’s World Cup — came out swinging.

“Football does not belong to investors,” he said in a video message on Instagram. “Once you have sold a piece of (the World Cup), you have sold out. Football belongs to the fans. It always has, and it always will.”

British politicians have form in this arena. In 2021, threats of legislation from then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson helped crush the European Super League, a project that challenged UEFA’s Champions League and which Infantino had quietly supported. The same political muscle could be flexed again if lawmakers sense that public anger is building.

The optics around Infantino’s alliances are also under scrutiny. His latest plan again pulls him closer to figures in the orbit of former U.S. President Donald Trump: a FIFA peace prize created and then handed to Trump, Trump’s intervention in the process that led to United States forward Folarin Balogun playing at the World Cup, and now a 12-year ownership deal proposal with Joshua Kushner’s firm.

For a Switzerland-based not-for-profit that has long claimed to act in the interests of the global game, those relationships raise uncomfortable questions.

Power, Votes and Infantino’s Future

Beneath the financial engineering and political noise lies a simple, brutal truth about FIFA’s structure.

Each of its 211 member associations has one vote. A football giant with a World Cup-winning history carries the same weight as a tiny federation whose national team may never come close to qualifying. Many of those smaller members rely heavily on FIFA funding and have few alternative income streams.

Infantino understood this from day one. Promising more money was central to his election campaign in 2016 and to his unopposed re-elections in 2019 and 2023. The new proposal is another, far bigger extension of that strategy.

On paper, he is cruising toward a fourth and final term through 2031. But this week’s plan has sparked frustration beyond the usual critics in Europe, and the clock is ticking in more ways than one.

Potential challengers have until Nov. 18 to enter the race for the presidential election scheduled for March 18 in Rabat, Morocco — a key Infantino ally and co-host of the 2030 World Cup. Any candidate will need time, backing and a clear message to convince enough associations to break with an incumbent who offers them unprecedented cash.

Infantino’s critics suspect he may be looking beyond the FIFA presidency itself. A powerful CEO or commissioner role at the new FIFA Forward Enterprise would offer him a long-term grip on the sport’s commercial engine, even after his presidential term limit expires.

For now, though, everything comes back to that September deadline.

Federations must decide whether to take the immediate money and sign up to a future in which private investors own a slice of the World Cup, or hold the line and risk being outvoted by those who cannot afford to say no.

The World Cup has survived wars, boycotts and scandals. It has never before been put on the block. The next few months will reveal whether world football is prepared to cash in its crown jewel — and who, in the end, really runs the game.