FIFA, the international governing body for soccer, is reportedly attempting to privatize the World Cup, a move that has generated significant backlash from European soccer associations and other stakeholders. The proposal, confirmed by FIFA, involves allowing private investors to buy shares in the World Cup through a newly formed entity, FIFA Forward Enterprises (FFE), which would manage FIFA's commercial operations.
Under the plan, FIFA would retain its status as a nonprofit organization and remain the majority shareholder in FFE. Thrive Capital, led by Joshua Kushner, and potentially Apollo Global Management, have been linked as potential investors. J.P. Morgan is serving as FIFA's financial advisor for the transaction. FIFA President Gianni Infantino has set a deadline of September 19 for a decision, stating that majority support is required, although FIFA's bylaws stipulate a 75 percent approval for rule changes. If approved, member associations would collectively receive $10 billion in funding, a substantial increase from the $2.7 billion available without private capital. Each association could potentially receive around $40 million.
Critics express concern that introducing private capital could incentivize changes such as expanding the World Cup, potentially holding it every two years, or exclusively hosting it in nations with strong commercial appeal, like the United States and Middle Eastern countries. Similar concerns have been raised regarding the Club World Cup, which FIFA has already planned to expand.
The proposal has met with widespread criticism. UEFA, the governing body for European football, is reportedly planning a crisis meeting to discuss potential boycotts of the World Cup. The Asian Football Confederation (AFC) and CONCACAF (Confederation of North, Central America and Caribbean Association Football) have voiced anger over not being consulted, though they have not explicitly rejected the idea. Several organizations representing clubs, players, and fans have also condemned the plan, as has British Prime Minister Andy Burnham.
Some have described the financial incentives offered as a form of bribery, and the tight deadline for a decision is viewed as a pressure tactic. The reported links to individuals connected with the Trump administration have also drawn criticism, particularly from European bodies. The Confederation of African Football (CAF) is set to evaluate the proposal in an upcoming executive committee meeting, while CONMEBOL (South America) and OFC (Oceania) have yet to issue public statements.
The negative reaction stems from the perception that the proposal is a significant cash grab by FIFA and Infantino, who has faced scrutiny regarding his leadership. The move is seen by some as a departure from the sport's roots as a working-class symbol, particularly in Europe.
The likelihood of the proposal passing may hinge on the strength of the backlash and the seriousness of boycott threats from major European nations. The European Super League faced significant fan opposition, which ultimately led to its collapse. If key European countries, which are significant contributors to the World Cup's prestige and revenue, were to threaten a boycott and follow through, it could pose a considerable risk to FIFA. However, the current voting structure within FIFA, which grants equal voting power to all 211 member nations, suggests that the substantial financial incentives offered could secure the necessary majority support, particularly from associations in Africa, the Caribbean, and Asia.
Infantino has maintained his position as FIFA president by fostering support from smaller and less affluent member nations, significantly increasing the distribution fund for associations since his election in 2016. While facing accusations of corruption, Infantino's approach has been seen as more transparent than that of his predecessor, Sepp Blatter, providing a veneer of legitimacy to FIFA's operations.