The Financial Times broke the story on Tuesday, revealing that FIFA intends to divest a portion of its commercial arm, a move that sent shockwaves through the global football community. The governing body plans to offer a 21% interest in a newly created subsidiary, FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE), which will house all of its commercial activities and major events, including the World Cup – the tournament that, as recently highlighted by The Athletic, remains the primary revenue engine for the organization.
The goal of the sale is to raise roughly $4.2 billion (about £3.2 billion) from external investors, prompting an immediate narrative that FIFA is effectively putting the World Cup up for sale. Reactions were swift and largely negative. By Wednesday evening, half of FIFA’s six continental confederations had publicly condemned the proposal, and numerous national associations – many of which were not consulted before the news leaked – expressed outrage.
Only a small minority of voices have defended the plan. Money has always been at the heart of FIFA’s operations, and this proposal is no exception. But what exactly does the organization intend to do, how does this compare with similar initiatives in other sports, and why has the reaction been so hostile? FFE is presented as a purpose‑built, stand‑alone commercial vehicle designed to maximise FIFA’s earnings from events and sponsorships.
Using valuation estimates from JP Morgan Chase, FIFA believes the new entity could be worth $20 billion. By selling a 21% share for $4.2 billion, the governing body would generate the cash needed for its next development cycle.
To approve the transaction, FIFA must secure the backing of a majority of its 211 member associations as well as the 37‑member FIFA Council, chaired by President Gianni Infantino. The $4.2 billion in proceeds is not the only incentive offered to members.
Instead, FIFA is promising a massive increase in development funding: $10 billion over the 2027‑2030 four‑year cycle. This represents a dramatic jump from the $3.86 billion allocated for development in the current 2023‑2026 period, which itself was only a modest $127 million increase over the original 2027‑2030 budget. The $10 billion pot includes all of FIFA’s development programmes, not just the Forward initiative. The Forward programme, which has been the cornerstone of FIFA’s redistribution of wealth since 2016, will see its budget swell dramatically under the new plan.
Historically, each member association received about $3 million per four‑year cycle. Forward 1.0 (2016‑18) raised 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 per association. Forward 4.0, covering 2027‑2030, is slated to provide just under $10 million to each of the 211 members.
The new proposal dwarfs those figures. FIFA intends to allocate $40 million to each member over the next four years – $20 million via Forward 4.0 and an additional $20 million through a brand‑new, optional scheme called FIFA Fast‑Forward. Multiplying the second $20 million by 211 members yields the $4.2 billion that the equity sale is meant to raise.
Fast‑Forward funds will only be available to those associations that formally opt‑in by September 19, effectively making participation in the equity sale a prerequisite for receiving the extra money. The timing of the leak, before FIFA could formally present the plan, left many questions unanswered.
A FAQ released on Wednesday attempted to clarify matters, including how a $4.2 billion equity sale translates into $10 billion of development money. FIFA’s logic is that the creation of FFE will generate higher commercial revenues, which, combined with the cash from the share sale, will fund the larger development package.
The organisation already earmarked $2.7 billion for Forward in 2027‑2030; under the new model that figure would rise to at least $4.2 billion, with additional payments flowing to confederations and regional bodies. FIFA also projects that the commercial boost from FFE will sustain higher Forward payouts beyond the immediate cycle: $22 million per member in 2031‑2034 and $24 million in 2035‑2038. Over three cycles, the total Forward allocation per association could reach $86 million – roughly five times what each member has received in the programme’s first decade.
Even without the equity component, FIFA believes that simply separating commercial and event operations into a dedicated entity will generate enough surplus to fund $4.2 billion of Forward payments in 2027‑2030, $4.6 billion in 2031‑2034 and $5.1 billion in 2035‑2038. For many smaller associations, such sums are transformative. Take the Mauritius Football Association, whose non‑FIFA revenue in 2025 was only $0.4 million. If Mauritius opts into Fast‑Forward and receives the full $20 million plus the $5 million from Forward 4.0, FIFA funding would account for 98% of its total income.
However, the plan appears to overlook the six continental confederations and other regional bodies, which currently receive $15 million each year ($60 million over four years). The FAQ indicates the $10 billion pot consists of $4.22 billion for member associations via Forward 4.0, another $4.22 billion via Fast‑Forward, and the remaining $1.56 billion from existing development programmes. Yet the original 2027‑2030 budget allocated $1.287 billion to those existing programmes, leaving only $273 million for confederations and other recipients – a figure that falls short of the $360 million the confederations were slated to receive in the current cycle. This discrepancy has fueled further criticism.
FIFA defends the move by pointing to similar transactions in other sports. In 2021, La Liga sold future broadcasting rights to private‑equity firm CVC for more than €2 billion (about $2.4 billion). UEFA, a frequent critic of FIFA, runs UC3, a joint commercial venture that manages the European competitions’ rights, though it has not been sold to external investors.
Critics argue that these examples are not perfect analogues: UC3 remains under UEFA control, and Formula 1 is a for‑profit enterprise whose owners reap the bulk of the financial rewards. FIFA, by contrast, is a not‑for‑profit organization whose statutes obligate it to promote football worldwide, foster education, culture and humanitarian values. Its not‑for‑profit status grants tax advantages; over the past decade the federation generated a pre‑tax surplus of $1.241 billion but paid only $66 million in taxes, an effective rate of roughly five percent.
The question remains: how will investors in FFE be compensated if FIFA pays no dividends and grants no governance rights? The FAQ states that investors would hold a non‑controlling stake that could be sold in future tender processes overseen by FIFA, but it offers little clarity on the financial upside.
Critics liken the arrangement to paying $4.2 billion for a share that provides no control, no direct profit and only a vague promise of future appreciation. The process itself has drawn fire for its lack of consultation.
A source close to FIFA, who asked to remain anonymous, suggested the federation was caught between presenting a detailed plan that might appear overly complex and pushing a rushed proposal that could be perceived as a fait accompli. The identification of a potential lead investor before any member association had been consulted only deepened suspicions.
Media reports have linked the prospective investor to Joshua Kushner, head of the investment vehicle Thrive Eternal, which is expected to lead the investor group. Kushner is the brother of Jared Kushner, former senior adviser to former U.S. President Donald Trump, and his involvement has sparked political speculation, despite his own firm’s donations to Democratic causes. Beyond the politics, the core controversy centers on the World Cup itself.
The tournament is a global cultural event managed by a body that, at least on paper, is not beholden to private capital. Selling a slice of its commercial rights to the highest bidder could fundamentally alter that relationship. There are also concerns about transparency.
While FIFA frequently publishes how Forward funds are allocated, many member associations lack robust public reporting mechanisms. The promise of larger payouts does little to assuage doubts about how the money will be spent once it arrives.
In summary, FIFA’s proposal aims to generate $4.2 billion by selling a 21% stake in a new commercial subsidiary, using the proceeds to dramatically increase development funding for its 211 members. The plan promises $40 million per association over the next four years, but it has been met with widespread criticism due to perceived lack of consultation, unclear benefits for investors, and potential erosion of the World Cup’s public‑good ethos.
Whether the vote by member associations will ultimately endorse the plan remains to be seen, but the debate has already highlighted deep tensions between commercial ambition and football’s traditional nonprofit principles.