The Financial Times broke the story on Tuesday, reporting that FIFA is gearing up to divest a portion of its commercial arm, a move that sent shockwaves and sparked outrage throughout the football community. The governing body of world football intends to sell a 21% interest in a newly created subsidiary called FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE). This entity will house all of FIFA's commercial activities and event management, including the World Cup, which The Athletic has recently highlighted as the primary revenue generator for the organisation.
The goal of the transaction is to raise roughly $4.2 billion (about £3.2 billion) from external investors, prompting a rapid narrative that FIFA is essentially selling a slice of the World Cup itself. By Wednesday evening, half of FIFA's six continental confederations had publicly condemned the plan, and numerous national associations voiced their displeasure, pointing out that they had not been consulted before the proposal was leaked. Support for the sale has been limited to a small minority.
Money has always been at the heart of FIFA’s operations, and this proposal raises several key questions: What exactly does FIFA intend to do with the sale? How does this compare with similar arrangements in other sports or within football itself? And why has the reaction been so hostile?
FIFA has framed the initiative around large‑scale numbers. FFE is being positioned as a purpose‑built vehicle designed to maximise the federation’s share of commercial and event‑related income. Using valuation estimates from JP Morgan Chase, FIFA projects that FFE could be worth $20 billion. A 21% stake would therefore fetch about $4.2 billion, which is the amount the organisation hopes to raise through an equity offering.
To proceed, FIFA must secure the approval of a majority of its 211 member associations as well as the 37‑person FIFA Council, chaired by President Gianni Infantino. However, the incentive offered to the members goes far beyond the $4.2 billion cash infusion. Instead of a simple cash payout, FIFA is promising $10 billion in development funding for the 2027‑2030 cycle. This represents a dramatic increase from the $3.86 billion allocated for development in the current 2023‑2026 cycle, which itself was only a modest $127 million rise over the original 2027‑2030 budget.
The $10 billion figure encompasses all development resources, not just those distributed through the Forward programme, but FIFA has highlighted that the plan would immediately benefit every one of its 211 members. The announcement and the subsequent FAQ released by FIFA omitted any mention of the six continental confederations, leaving unclear how the new financial model would affect them. Under the existing system each confederation receives $15 million per year, totalling $60 million over a four‑year period, but the new proposal only outlines payments to the individual member associations, who will vote on the sale. Historically, the amount each national federation receives has risen steadily under Infantino’s leadership.
Before his 2016 election, associations were allocated 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, Forward 3.0 (up to 2026) guarantees at least $8 million, and Forward 4.0 (2027‑30) is set to deliver just under $10 million per member. The new proposal dwarfs these figures, offering each of the 211 members $40 million over the next four years – $20 million from Forward 4.0 and an additional $20 million from a newly introduced optional programme called FIFA Fast‑Forward.
Multiplying the optional $20 million by 211 members yields the $4.2 billion that FIFA hopes to raise through the equity sale. Fast‑Forward has generated further controversy because participation is contingent on members opting in by 19 September. Those who do not opt in will not receive the extra funds, effectively tying the equity sale to the Fast‑Forward programme.
The premature leak of the proposal before FIFA could formally present it left many questions unanswered. The FAQ attempted to clarify how a $4.2 billion equity sale translates into $10 billion of development money.
FIFA’s logic is that the creation of FFE will boost revenues beyond the $15 billion already projected for the 2023‑26 cycle. By separating commercial operations into a professional, profit‑driven entity, FIFA expects higher earnings that can fund larger Forward payments. In the 2027‑30 cycle, the Forward budget is projected to rise from $2.7 billion to at least $4.2 billion, with each member receiving $20 million. This amount will increase further in subsequent cycles: $22 million per member in 2031‑34 and $24 million in 2035‑38.
Across three cycles, FIFA predicts that members could receive a total of $86 million each, roughly five times the average payout in the programme’s first decade. Even without the equity sale, FIFA believes that the stand‑alone commercial entity will generate sufficient surplus to fund $4.2 billion in Forward payments for 2027‑30, $4.6 billion for 2031‑34, and $5.1 billion for 2035‑38. For many smaller federations, these sums are transformative. Take Mauritius, for example: its non‑FIFA revenue in 2025 was about $0.4 million.
If the Mauritian FA participates in Fast‑Forward and receives the full $20 million plus $5 million from Forward 4.0, FIFA‑derived income would account for 98% of its total revenue. However, the plan appears to overlook the confederations and regional bodies that also receive Forward funding.
The FAQ breaks down the $10 billion pot as $4.22 billion for the 211 members via Forward 4.0, another $4.22 billion through Fast‑Forward, and the remaining $1.56 billion from existing development programmes. In the original 2027‑30 budget, $1.287 billion was earmarked for these other programmes, leaving only $273 million for confederations and other recipients.
This is problematic because, in the current cycle, confederations were slated to receive $360 million and other associations $76 million – a total $163 million higher than the $273 million now apparently available. FIFA defends the proposal by pointing to similar deals in other sports.
In 2021, La Liga sold future broadcast rights to private‑equity firm CVC for over €2 billion (about $2.4 billion). UEFA runs a joint commercial venture called UC3 to manage its European competition rights, though that entity has not been sold to private investors.
Critics note that Formula 1 operates as a fully commercial, profit‑driven enterprise, whereas FIFA is a not‑for‑profit organisation whose statutes emphasise the promotion of football’s educational, cultural and humanitarian values. FIFA’s non‑profit status brings tax advantages; over the past decade the federation generated a pre‑tax surplus of $1.241 billion but paid only $66 million in tax, an effective rate of roughly five percent. How a commercial subsidiary like FFE would fit into this framework remains unclear. FIFA pays no dividends, so what would investors receive for their $4.2 billion?
The FAQ states that investors would hold a non‑controlling stake in FFE that could be sold in future tender processes overseen by FIFA, but offers no guarantee of dividends, voting rights, or influence over key decisions such as World Cup format or frequency. The unilateral nature of the plan has also drawn fire. Many members feel the process has bypassed proper consultation, creating the impression of a fait‑accompli. Reports suggest that a potential lead investor was identified before any member associations were consulted, further eroding trust.
The proposed investor is Joshua Kushner, head of Thrive Eternal, who is linked to former President Donald Trump through family connections. While Kushner’s political donations have spanned both parties, the association with Trump has amplified concerns about political influence.
Beyond the optics, the core controversy centres on the World Cup itself. The tournament is a global spectacle currently 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. There are also questions about transparency.
While FIFA touts increased funding for development, the organisation has historically faced criticism over the opacity of World Cup revenue distribution. The rapid promotion of larger payouts does little to reassure observers that financial disclosures will improve. In summary, FIFA argues that establishing FFE will unlock higher long‑term revenues, allowing it to fund more ambitious development projects. Yet the need for an immediate $4.2 billion injection, the limited control offered to investors, and the apparent neglect of confederations raise doubts about the true motivations behind the plan.
The final vote by member associations will determine whether the federation proceeds with the stake sale, but the debate underscores the tension between commercial ambition and the sport’s not‑for‑profit ethos.