The seed was planted the day before the 2026 World Cup final.
Before U.S. President Donald Trump embarked upon his winding monologue about opera singers and Thomas Tuchel’s tactics, FIFA’s chief Gianni Infantino delivered his own speech.
Amid the lavish praise for the tournament co-hosted by the U.S., Canada and Mexico, the Swiss executive warned that the next priority would be to “unleash the commercial potential and opportunity that FIFA has.”
Given the seismic nature of Infantino’s proposal, “unleashed” was the right word.
What Is Infantino’s Plan?
An official press release from FIFA couched its plan in a sea of different proposals, each with their confusingly similar acronym. The Times, who broke the story before world soccer’s governing body had the chance to, summed it up more succinctly: “World Cup for sale.”
There is a little more nuance to the proposal, but that gets to the root of the issue. Infantino has essentially planned to create a subsidiary company of FIFA—the FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE)—that will be tasked with “consolidating FIFA’s commercial and event operations.”
Those events chiefly being the men’s and women’s World Cups, as well as the expanded versions of the men’s and women’s Club World Cups.
This smaller company, which will be owned by FIFA (a strictly non-profit organization, lest we forget) has been valued by FIFA itself at $20 billion. The plan is to then sell shares of this new enterprise to private investors to raise capital which will naturally be redistributed across each member association to accelerate the growth of the game.
What Would Infantino’s Role Be?
Infantino is FIFA’s current president and, despite a myriad of controversy heightened by his conduct at the 2026 World Cup, is set to stand for another term which will stretch to 2031. Once his spell in charge of FIFA has come to a close, the idea is for Infantino to take charge of this new company, FFE, which will be in control of the World Cups.
The Times have tipped Infantino for the role of “commissioner” and theorize that his annual salary would be comparable to the same position held by Roger Goodell in the NFL, namely, $64 million per year.
FIFA insisted that Infantino’s exact remit “has never been discussed” while adding that “the FIFA president and the FIFA administration will and must have leading roles in this entity.”
Who Will the Investors Be?
FIFA confirmed that Thrive Eternal will “lead the proposed investor group.” Joshua Kushner is the founder and managing partner of the venture capital firm as well as being the younger brother of Jared Kushner, U.S. President Donald Trump’s son-in-law. The Times claim that “figures close to the Donald Trump administration” have been consulted about this proposal.
The U.S. bank J.P. Morgan, consultancy firm OpenEconomics and Greg Maffei, CEO of BANN Ventures and former president and CEO of Liberty Media during its acquisition of Formula One, will also be involved, FIFA revealed.
A statement from the governing body stressed repeatedly that FIFA would “retain sole control” of the company—and therefore the World Cup—while those outsiders putting money in would hold “minority, non-controlling investments.”
“Any such investors would be selected against clear long-term, governance, and strategic criteria,” FIFA explained. “They would represent a geographically diversified group that reflects the global nature of the game, acting as minority, long-term partners that could contribute capital and commercial expertise in support of FIFA’s mission to grow the global game.”
FIFA have tasked themselves with raising $4.2 billion from the likes of Kushner’s Thrive Eternal which, based on a $20 billion valuation, amounts to a 21% share of the subsidiary that controls the future of all World Cups. FIFA’s 211 member associations would be entitled to their own slice of the pie—The Times estimate that would amount to around 20%—leaving FIFA with the majority.
| Entity | Estimated Share in Subsidiary |
|---|---|
| FIFA | ~59% |
| FIFA member associations | ~20% |
| Outside investors | 21% |
Why Would FIFA Want to Sell the World Cup?
In the eyes of Infantino, this is a natural evolution in FIFA’s quest to raise more and more money which can be reinvested into soccer. “Our next stage of growth needs a structure built for it, one where the commercial side of the game operates as a focused, dedicated business, with its value shared more and better all around the world,” he explained.
“Every FIFA member association should have an opportunity to seek a fair share of the available funding to shape its own future, deciding for itself rather than relying on others. This is about the democratization of football worldwide.”
A FIFA statement added: “It is designed to widen access to the game, strengthen football infrastructure and opportunity worldwide, and ensure that every MA [member association] shares in the game’s growth. FIFA will utilize this investment equally across every country, no matter its size or wealth or geographical location, for the benefit of all.”
Proposed Funding Under Infantino’s Plan
| Cycle | Funding for Each Member Association |
|---|---|
| Immediate | $20 million (optional) |
| 2027–30 | $20 million |
| 2031–34 | $22 million |
| 2035–38 | $24 million |
The financial figures spell out a very obvious incentive for the individual national setups. Each member association was budgeted to receive $8 million across the 2027–30 cycle. Should this plan to create a company which will be pumped full of outside investment come to fruition, that windfall would be cranked up to $20 million, and rise as the years advance.
There is the added incentive of an immediate, no-questions-asked $20 million lump sum for the vague investment into “special projects” which will be available to any association.
Making all the associations instantly and immensely richer would also make the person responsible for that scheme remarkably popular just before a FIFA presidential election, for what it’s worth.
Is This Going to Happen?
FIFA first need to get a majority vote from the 211 member associations to pass through this transformative proposal. While this plot has inspired fierce backlash from many, there are several federations who would surely find it difficult to turn down the chance to more than double their earnings.
“Outside investors will have only a minority stake in FFE and will not play any operational role,” FIFA have claimed in response to concerns. “Equally, they are investing in a subsidiary of FIFA, and not in FIFA itself. For FIFA, nothing changes.” Some things, however, will surely change.
How Infantino’s Plan Could Impact the Global Game
Infantino has claimed that this venture is about the “democratization of football,” but it’s a lot more like the “capitalization” of the beautiful game.
These investors who will supposedly have no controlling stake in operations have been brought in to “contribute capital and commercial expertise,” FIFA say. “All of that “expertise” will surely be directed towards generating a return on the capital that they have invested. Whether the best interest of the sport is at the forefront of their minds when coming up with these schemes will only be seen in the fullness of time.
The most immediate theoretical consequences of this shift could very well be more World Cups and more Club World Cups. Given how lucrative the 2026 tournament was, it would be a natural conclusion for investors seeking more revenue streams to simply repeat a proven formula; including dynamic pricing, eye-watering ticket costs and every other maximized expense which somehow didn’t impinge on attendances or intrigue.
That, of course, would ignore the World Cup’s best asset: its scarcity. The fact that it is held every four years is why group games between Switzerland and Bosnia and Herzegovina can sell out 70,000-seater stadiums on the other side of the planet: miss one tournament and the best part of a decade is lost trying to return to those heights.
Expanding the World Cup—and its club version—is another proposal already on the table, while there could be more pressure to stage these competitions exclusively in commercially fruitful markets. The Times offer up the Middle East as a potential area of focus, which would force more tournaments in the Northern Hemisphere’s winter that would in turn disrupt the European club season.
One unnamed senior figure is quoted as calling this proposal a “nuclear bomb” for the sport. UEFA has publicly vented displeasure.
UEFA Respond First
UEFA statement on The Times article: ⬇️ pic.twitter.com/ye1tjfWRCb
— UEFA (@UEFA) July 28, 2026
UEFA rarely misses a chance to points-score with FIFA in recent times and European soccer’s governing body released a stinging statement before the proposal had even been officially confirmed.
“The soul and governance of football are not assets to trade—especially with zero transparency as to who gains financially,” UEFA wrote. “None of us are the owners of football. It is not FIFA’s to sell.”
If Infantino can convince enough associations outside of UEFA’s reach—there are 156 beyond Europe and a majority would require 106 votes—then the World Cup, the very soul of the sport, would very much be FIFA’s to sell.
