The Financial Times broke the story on Tuesday, revealing that FIFA intends to off‑load a portion of its commercial arm, a move that sent shockwaves through the world of sport. The governing body of football plans to sell a 21% interest in a newly created subsidiary called FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE).
This entity will house all commercial activities and events, including the World Cup – the tournament that The Athletic recently identified as the primary revenue engine for FIFA. The goal of the transaction is to raise roughly $4.2 billion (£3.2 bn) from outside investors, prompting a swift narrative that FIFA is effectively selling a slice of the World Cup itself. Within 24 hours, half of the six continental confederations had publicly condemned the proposal, and numerous national associations – many of which were not consulted before the leak – joined the criticism.
Support for the plan has been limited to a small minority. As always with football, money sits at the centre of the controversy, but the details of the plan, its comparators in other sports, and the reasons behind the uproar merit a deeper look. FFE is presented as a purpose‑built commercial vehicle designed to maximise FIFA’s earnings from its events and sponsorships. According to valuation work from JP Morgan Chase, FIFA estimates the new subsidiary could be worth $20 billion.
The 21% stake on offer would therefore generate the $4.2 billion target for the equity sale. To move forward, FIFA must obtain the approval of a majority of its 211 member associations and the 37‑member FIFA Council, chaired by President Gianni Infantino. However, the $4.2 billion cash infusion is not the only lure for members.
FIFA is also promising a $10 billion development fund for the 2027‑2030 cycle – a dramatic increase over the $3.86 billion allocated for development in the current 2023‑26 period, which itself was only a modest $127 million rise from the previous cycle. The $10 billion pot covers all development spending, not just the Forward programme. FIFA’s Forward initiative, which it highlighted in the announcement, claims that the increased funding will immediately benefit every one of the 211 member associations. Notably absent from the initial announcement and the subsequent FAQ released on Wednesday were the six continental confederations, leaving questions about how much of the new money will trickle down to them.
Each confederation currently receives $15 million per year ($60 million over four years), but the FAQ only detailed the distribution to the 211 members, who will vote on the sale. Historically, the amount each national association receives has risen steadily under Infantino’s tenure. Before his 2016 election, members got roughly $3 million per four‑year cycle.
Forward 1.0 (2016‑18) lifted that to $3.75 million, Forward 2.0 (2019‑22) nearly doubled it to $6 million, and Forward 3.0 (through 2026) guarantees at least $8 million. The upcoming Forward 4.0 for 2027‑30 is set to provide just under $10 million per association. The new proposal dwarfs these figures, offering $40 million per member over the next four years – $20 million from Forward 4.0 and an additional $20 million from a brand‑new optional programme called FIFA Fast‑Forward. Multiplying the second $20 million by 211 members yields the $4.2 billion that FIFA hopes to raise from the equity sale.
Fast‑Forward has sparked further controversy because participation is conditional: associations must opt‑in by 19 September, otherwise they forfeit the funds. UEFA’s Wednesday statement summed up the sentiment: "This says everything you need to know about this plan." The premature leak of the plan left many details vague, prompting the FAQ to address key questions. One major query was how a $4.2 billion equity sale translates into $10 billion for development.
FIFA’s answer is that the sale will fund part of the new development pool, while the creation of FFE is expected to generate additional revenue beyond the $15 billion already projected for the 2023‑26 cycle. In FIFA’s view, a professional, stand‑alone commercial business will boost income, allowing the Forward budget to rise from $2.7 billion (planned for 2027‑30) to at least $4.2 billion. The extra money will flow to members, confederations and regional bodies. FIFA also projects that the higher revenues from FFE will sustain increased Forward payments not only for 2027‑30 but for subsequent cycles: $22 million per association in 2031‑34 and $24 million in 2035‑38.
Across three cycles, each member could receive roughly $86 million – nearly five times the average $17 million they have earned in the programme’s first decade. Even without the equity sale, FIFA believes that spinning off commercial operations into a focused entity will generate $4.2 billion for Forward 4.0 in 2027‑30, $4.6 billion in 2031‑34 and $5.1 billion in 2035‑38. For many small associations, such sums are transformative. Take the Mauritius Football Association, whose non‑FIFA revenue in 2025 was about $0.4 million.
If it participates in Fast‑Forward and receives the full $20 million plus $5 million from Forward 4.0, FIFA‑derived income would account for roughly 98% of its total budget. However, the FAQ reveals a potential shortfall for confederations. The $10 billion development pool is broken down into $4.22 billion for the 211 members via Forward 4.0, another $4.22 billion via Fast‑Forward, and $1.56 billion from existing development programmes. The original 2027‑30 budget allocated $1.287 billion to those existing programmes, leaving only $273 million for confederations and other regional bodies.
In the current cycle, the six confederations were slated to receive $360 million and other regional entities $76 million – a total $163 million more than the remaining $273 million. This discrepancy raises concerns about the fairness of the distribution. FIFA defends the plan by pointing to similar deals in other sports. In 2021, La Liga sold future broadcasting rights to private‑equity firm CVC for over €2 billion (about $2.4 billion).
UEFA runs UC3, a joint venture that manages the commercial rights of its European competitions, though it has not sold equity to outside investors. Critics note that Formula 1 operates as a purely commercial enterprise, with private owners reaping most of the profits, a model that differs fundamentally from FIFA’s not‑for‑profit status. By statute, FIFA is a non‑profit organization tasked with promoting football worldwide, emphasizing its unifying, educational, cultural and humanitarian values. This mission contrasts sharply with the profit‑driven motives of private equity firms that would likely sit on the other side of the FFE deal.
FIFA’s non‑profit status grants it tax advantages; over the past decade the organization generated a pre‑tax surplus of $1.241 billion but paid only $66 million in tax, an effective rate of about five percent. The FAQ attempts to explain what investors would receive for their $4.2 billion.
Investors would hold a non‑controlling stake in FFE that they could sell in future tender processes overseen by FIFA. However, the lack of dividends, voting rights, or any influence over the World Cup’s format or frequency makes the value proposition unclear. Critics argue that paying billions for a share that offers no control or clear financial return is dubious. Another point of contention is the unilateral manner in which the plan was rolled out.
Many members feel excluded from the decision‑making process, and a source close to FIFA suggested the organization was caught between presenting a detailed proposal and pushing a fait‑accompli. The identification of a potential lead investor before any member consultation has further eroded trust. Documents seen by The Athletic indicate that the investor would need to transfer funds by the end of October, suggesting a rushed timeline.
The rumored lead investor is Joshua Kushner, head of Thrive Eternal, which is expected to spearhead the investor group for FFE. Kushner’s familial ties to former President Donald Trump – his brother Jared is Trump’s son‑in‑law – have added a political dimension to the controversy. While Kushner’s own political donations lean Democratic, Infantino’s public friendliness toward Trump has fueled speculation about the motives behind the partnership.
Beyond the optics, the core issue remains: the World Cup is a global event traditionally overseen by a body that, at least on paper, is not beholden to private capital. Selling a portion of its commercial rights to the highest bidder could fundamentally alter that relationship. Moreover, the benefits for member associations are questionable.
While the promised cash influx is substantial, transparency around how World Cup revenues are allocated has long been a concern, and the new scheme does not appear to address those governance gaps. FIFA argues that establishing FFE will unlock higher broadcast and sponsorship revenues, but private investors will inevitably expect a return on their investment, potentially diverting funds away from development projects. The question then becomes: why does FIFA need the $4.2 billion if the creation of FFE alone could generate the same long‑term revenue gains?
A source familiar with internal discussions suggested that FIFA could retain 100% ownership of FFE and still reap the benefits, making the external equity sale seem unnecessary. According to the FAQ, the one‑off Fast‑Forward payments are intended to "unlock and turbo‑charge long‑term development projects that would otherwise be out of reach within a single FIFA Forward cycle." Yet the urgency of the proposal, coming less than a year after a modest Forward budget was approved, raises doubts about the genuine need for external capital. In summary, the proposal has ignited swift condemnation across the football world. While the financial figures are impressive, the process has been criticised for its lack of consultation, the opaque benefits to investors, and the potential erosion of FIFA’s non‑profit ethos.
The ultimate verdict will rest with the member associations when they cast their votes, but the debate has already highlighted deep divisions over the future governance and commercial direction of the sport.