FIFA's $4.2bn World Cup privatization plan sparks UEFA fury

FIFA announced on Tuesday that it intends to create a $20 billion subsidiary to manage the World Cup and other major tournaments, then sell minority stakes—up to 20 percent—to private investors. The move would raise as much as $4.2 billion, money the organization says would flow back into football development worldwide. But the proposal has ignited a fierce backlash, most pointedly from UEFA, European football's governing body, which called the plan a violation of something fundamental to the sport.

The structure FIFA has designed preserves its own control. The organization would retain a majority stake in the new entity, called FIFA Forward Enterprise, and would keep sole authority over football governance, competition rules, match schedules, and sporting decisions. Private investors would hold minority positions. The proposal still requires approval from FIFA's 211 member nations before it can proceed. If it moves forward, the investor group is expected to be led by a vehicle founded by Joshua Kushner, brother of Jared Kushner, the son-in-law of U.S. President Donald Trump.

FIFA's argument is straightforward: the organization is one of the world's richest sports bodies, generating billions annually from broadcasting rights, sponsorships, and commercial arrangements tied to the World Cup. The most recent tournament, held across the United States, Canada, and Mexico, was the largest in the competition's history. FIFA says that channeling new capital into the game—with all net proceeds reinvested in football—would expand access and strengthen participation in countries where the sport has less commercial infrastructure. "Football is the world's most popular sport," FIFA President Gianni Infantino said in a statement. "Our job is to make sure the rest of football grows with it."

But UEFA sees something different in the proposal. In a statement, the European body said the plan "crosses a line that football's governing institutions should never cross." The organization argued that the soul and governance of football are not commodities to be traded, especially without transparency about who profits. "None of us are the owners of football," UEFA said. "It is not FIFA's to sell." The statement called on national football associations, leagues, clubs, players, supporters, and governments to take the proposal seriously and resist it.

The criticism extends beyond UEFA. Andy Burnham, the newly elected prime minister of the United Kingdom, weighed in on social media, saying the World Cup belongs to no one and is not a product to be sold. "Dress the deal up however you like," Burnham wrote. "Once you have sold a piece of it, you have sold out." His intervention signals that the dispute is not confined to football's internal politics but touches something the broader public cares about—the idea that certain competitions transcend commerce.

The divide reflects a deeper tension within global football. FIFA, structured as a not-for-profit organization, positions itself as an agent of development and inclusion, using commercial success to fund growth in underserved regions. UEFA, by contrast, has cast itself as football's custodian, defending the sport's traditions and governance from what it sees as creeping privatization. The proposal deepens that split. For FIFA, the World Cup's commercial value is a tool to be leveraged for the game's benefit. For UEFA and its allies, that value is precisely what must be protected from investor hands.

The vote by FIFA's member nations will determine whether this vision of football's future moves forward. What happens in that vote will signal whether the organization's development argument carries more weight than the warnings about selling the game's soul.