FIFA Tried to Sell 20% of Its Commercial Future. Football's Answer Was Swift, and Loud

The plan lasted less than a week.

FIFA announced on a Tuesday that it wanted to create a commercial subsidiary called FIFA Forward Enterprise, valued at about $20 billion, and sell up to a 20 percent stake to private investors. That would have raised as much as $4.2 billion. By Friday, president Gianni Infantino had scrapped it, saying the project had created divisions that were no longer in the interest of the original objective.

Why the numbers looked so tempting

On paper, the pitch made sense. FIFA said the money would fund development for its 211 member associations. It promised each one $40 million for the 2027 to 2030 cycle if they agreed by September 19. For a small federation, that is life-changing money.

And FIFA is a non-profit. It generates enormous revenue from the World Cup, but it also has to spread it around the world. A $4.2 billion injection was supposed to solve that.

That offer, though, came with a deadline measured in days and a price that many powerful stakeholders considered too high.

The revolt

UEFA reacted first and hardest. Its 55 member associations voted unanimously to boycott FIFA tournaments if the plan went ahead, with the organisation arguing the World Cup could not be treated as an "investment product." It accused FIFA of putting the game's "soul" up for sale.

Then it spread. CONCACAF, with 41 members, and the Asian Football Confederation, with 47, joined the opposition. Together with UEFA, those three bodies represent more than half of FIFA's members. That matters, because the plan needed member support to pass.

The pressure inside FIFA also grew. Carlos Cordeiro, a senior adviser and former U.S. Soccer president, resigned in protest, according to reports. The New York Post reported that potential investors, including a group expected to be led by Joshua Kushner's Thrive, and adviser JPMorgan were pulling back too. Real Madrid publicly thanked UEFA for protecting football "at a decisive moment."

UEFA was reportedly considering further action, including a no-confidence motion against Infantino that would require 43 FIFA members to back it. Infantino faces re-election next year.

Who owns the World Cup?

Here is the opinion. The plan failed because FIFA tried to sell something its members believed they already owned.

The World Cup is run by FIFA, but it lives in the hearts of national associations, clubs and fans. When a president proposes handing 20 percent of the money machine to outside investors, it triggers a very old question: who is the game for?

There is also an uncomfortable irony. The plan was pitched as a way to help federations that need help most. Yet the people most affected, including the federations that would have received the $40 million, ended up siding against it. Money did not settle the matter, because the fight was about control.

That does not mean the problem went away. Development funding still needs a source, and the countries that rely on FIFA cheques still need their cheques.What replaces the deal? UEFA and others will presumably push for reforms that keep control in football's hands. FIFA will need to come back to the table with a plan that members accept.

Infantino said he intends to bring all interested parties back together in the coming days and weeks. That is a diplomatic sentence, and it will be tested quickly.

So here is the question football now has to answer. If private capital is out, who pays for the game to grow in places where the World Cup is the biggest cheque anyone ever writes?