FIFA president Gianni Infantino has officially withdrawn his contentious plan to sell a portion of future World Cup revenues to private‑equity investors, a move that came after fierce pushback from the sport's governing bodies. While the president has stepped back from the proposal, UEFA has publicly announced that it no longer trusts Infantino’s leadership, a stance that the English Football Association has also endorsed.
The original scheme, unveiled on a Tuesday, was to create a new vehicle called FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE). The idea was to bundle the sale of FIFA’s commercial rights – broadcasting, sponsorship, ticketing and licensing – with the operational delivery of its tournaments.
Infantino gave national associations a deadline of 19 September to endorse the plan, sweetening the offer with a £30.1 million incentive for those who voted in favour. From the outset, the plan attracted sharp criticism. UEFA, the North‑American, Central‑American and Caribbean federation (CONCACAF) and the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) all condemned the proposal as a dangerous precedent that could turn the world’s most popular sport into a financial commodity.
Even UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham weighed in, demanding an urgent review of FIFA’s governance and calling the president’s retreat “the right decision”. Infantino issued a statement in the early hours of Saturday, explaining that the FIFA Forward Enterprise project was intended to strengthen member associations and to support football in regions that need it most.
He stressed that the initiative would only have moved forward if a clear majority of members supported it, after a thorough consultation process involving the FIFA Council, the confederations and other stakeholders. After listening to the feedback, Infantino said the project had created divisions that threatened the original purpose of uniting and improving the game, and therefore it would not proceed. He pledged to bring all interested parties back together in the weeks ahead to continue growing football worldwide, especially in under‑served nations. Apostrophe‑free, Sheikh Salman bin Ibrahim Al Khalifa wrote on the AFC website that he welcomed FIFA’s decision to abandon the sell‑off.
He argued that any initiative with the potential to reshape global football must be discussed transparently with confederations, the FIFA Council, member associations and other stakeholders. He added that the future of the sport should always be shaped through collective dialogue and respect for established governance structures.
Sky Sports’ Kaveh Solhekol echoed the sentiment, declaring that the controversy had reached a tipping point and that Infantino’s authority was eroding. Solhekol suggested that UEFA and other bodies were effectively calling for Infantino’s resignation, even if they were reluctant to state it outright.
He noted that UEFA’s statement left “no options off the table”, implying that a new leader could soon be sought. UEFA welcomed the cancellation, saying it would work with partners and stakeholders to ensure that similar schemes cannot be fast‑tracked without proper consultation.
In a detailed statement, UEFA thanked fans, leagues, clubs, players, national associations, confederations, prime ministers and other public figures for demonstrating that football is not for sale. It warned against secret, fast‑track deals devised by “faceless individuals” and pledged a thorough review of the episode. The organization stressed that the current FIFA leadership had lost its confidence not only from UEFA but from many other members of the football family.
The English FA issued a short but firm statement: “We fully support UEFA’s position. It is time for a full and robust review of FIFA’s leadership and governance to ensure that the global game is run transparently, for the benefit of all 211 member nations and with the long‑term stewardship of football at its heart.” The Football Association of Wales (FAW) echoed the same sentiment, emphasizing that FIFA and its members are custodians of the sport and must put football’s long‑term growth first. The internal fallout at FIFA was also notable.
Senior adviser Carlos Cordeiro resigned, calling the privatisation plan “a bad deal for football” and “for the long‑term future of the game”. In an exclusive interview with Sky News, Cordeiro said he had no involvement in the proposal and opposed it unequivocally. Chief Operating Officer Kevin Lamour also voiced his frustration, telling the Associated Press that staff felt “deceived” by Infantino’s lack of openness and that they deserved better than “contempt and intimidation”. Lamour described the World Cup plan as “the project of one person” and urged football leaders to act.
Under the original FFE proposal, FIFA aimed to raise up to $4.2 billion (£3.1 billion) from external investors by selling minority, non‑controlling stakes in a $20 billion‑valued enterprise. The governing body claimed the capital would unlock more than $10 billion in development funding over the next four years. Critics argued that the money could be mobilised directly from FIFA’s existing reserves – which total over $5 billion (£3.7 billion) – to support grassroots programmes in all 211 member nations, without having to “sell off the family silver”. Speculation about Infantino’s possible successors has already begun.
Some commentators mention Nasser Al‑Khelaifi, the powerful PSG president who sits on UEFA’s executive committee, though he has not expressed interest. Others point to Sheikh Salman bin Ibrahim Al Khalifa, who finished second in the 2015 FIFA presidential vote, and Victor Montagliani, CONCACAF’s chief, both of whom have publicly opposed the sell‑off.
Aleksander Čeferin, UEFA’s president, is also named as a potential alternative, praised for his vision of a cleaner, less commercialised football administration. However, Čeferin has not indicated any desire to run FIFA. In summary, Infantino’s retreat marks a significant victory for the coalition of federations, governments and football fans who argued that the sport should not be turned into a private investment vehicle. UEFA’s loss of confidence in the president, coupled with calls for a comprehensive governance review, suggests that FIFA’s leadership will face intense scrutiny in the coming months.
Whether this episode will lead to lasting reforms or simply a reshuffling of power remains to be seen, but the message is clear: the global game will not tolerate secretive deals that threaten its integrity.