The soccer world was rocked this week by a bombshell report from The Times of London, later confirmed by FIFA, that the sport’s global governing body is attempting to privatize the World Cup.
The Post works through what the proposal means, the reaction to it and whether it might happen.
What is being proposed?
FIFA president Gianni Infantino wants to allow private investors to buy shares in the World Cup. That would in turn lead to a company, FIFA Forward Enterprises, being formed to run FIFA’s commercial operations, though FIFA itself — which has nonprofit status in Switzerland — would continue both as the governing body of soccer and a majority shareholder in FFE.
Thrive Capital, which is run by Joshua Kushner — whose brother, Jared, is the president’s special peace envoy and son-in-law — is reportedly expected to lead the investor group. Apollo Global Management, whose CEO Marc Rowan is both on Trump’s Board of Peace and a major campaign contributor, has also been linked as a potential investor by The Times of London. J.P. Morgan is acting as FIFA’s financial adviser.
In a letter sent to member associations, Infantino said a decision must be made by Sept. 19. The letter said that majority support is needed for adoption, though the organization’s own rules say 75 percent support is needed to change FIFA bylaws.
Infantino also said that, with the private capital infusion, members would receive a total of $10 billion in funding, which would equate to about $40 million per association. Without it, that total would be $2.7 billion.
What would it mean if the proposal were adopted?
The main concern is that infusing private capital into FIFA would create an incentive structure that leads to outcomes such as needless expansion of the World Cup, playing the competition every two years as opposed to every four, or hosting it only in countries with the best commercial benefits — i.e., the U.S. and Middle Eastern nations with significant capital such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE.
All of that might also apply to the Club World Cup, which FIFA has already talked about expanding after the 32-team competition was launched in the U.S. last summer.
Reporting from The Times of London also indicates that Infantino, who will be term-limited as FIFA’s president in 2031 if re-elected later this year — largely a formality, as he’s running unopposed — would become the commissioner of FFE on a Roger Goodell-like salary after 2031.
Whether FIFA could remain a nonprofit, or what the reaction would be from the European Union, are unclear as of now.
What is the reaction?
In a word, scathing.
UEFA, the body of European football associations, will reportedly hold a crisis meeting Thursday in which the idea of threatening a World Cup boycott will be discussed. AFC and CONCACAF, the equivalent bodies for Asia and North America, have both released statements expressing anger that they weren’t consulted over the idea, though neither went as far as disavowing it altogether.
A series of organizations representing clubs, players and supporters have also condemned the idea, as has British Prime Minister Andy Burnham.
The financial incentives laid out in Infantino’s letter have been described as a form of bribery, with the demand to make a decision by mid-September seen as a pressure tactic. The links to President Trump’s orbit are also viewed with offense, particularly by the Europeans whose opposition has been loudest.
CAF, which represents Africa’s federations, held off criticism, saying it will hold an executive committee next week to evaluate the idea.
CONMEBOL and OFC, the confederations representing South America and Oceania, have yet to say anything publicly.
Why has the reaction been so negative?
To truly unpack that would require a sociology class on soccer’s role as a symbol of the working class, particularly in Britain but throughout Europe as a whole.
Since we don’t have the space for that here, we’ll make it more simple: because it’s seen as an open cash-grab on the part of an organization, FIFA, and an individual, Infantino, with a reputation for such.
Will the proposal happen, and if so, why?
That likely depends on how loud the backlash and how serious the threat of a boycott is. Fan backlash killed the European Super League — an attempt by large clubs to break away from domestic leagues and form their own competition in 2021 — and could play a similar role here.
More pressing, if major European nations such as England, Germany, France and Spain — which will co-host the 2030 World Cup — make genuine boycott threats and are ready to follow through, it’s hard to believe FIFA would risk a World Cup without their participation. European countries have used the same tactic to ensure that Russia remains kicked out of not only the World Cup but other international competitions such as the Olympics and IIHF championships, over its invasion of Ukraine.
As for whether the votes are there to pass it, it is extremely hard to imagine they are not. FIFA operates much like the United Nations insofar as giving all of its members equal voting power. So the massive cash infusion represented by this proposal is likely enough on its own to get a majority of its 211 countries — think Africa, the Caribbean, Asia — on board, should a vote take place.
If everyone hates Gianni Infantino so much, why is he still in charge?
Understanding that dynamic is crucial to understanding both FIFA and Infantino’s ability to retain his job despite a brutally poor public image. Infantino has made sure to take care of smaller, poorer countries — FIFA has said the distribution fund for its member associations has grown eightfold since he was elected in 2016 — allowing him to retain majority support. Compared to Sepp Blatter, his predecessor who was brought down by corruption scandals, Infantino has also been largely open about what he’s doing. Though many have described him as corrupt, too, that has given it a patina of legitimacy which Blatter’s FIFA lacked.
