FIFA has withdrawn its controversial proposal to establish a $20 billion commercial company and sell a minority stake to private investors, ending one of the most divisive governance initiatives in the organization’s recent history after an extraordinary wave of resistance from football authorities across the world.
The decision marks a significant setback for FIFA President Gianni Infantino, who had championed the restructuring as a way to generate billions of dollars in additional funding for the organization’s 211 member associations. Instead, the proposal triggered an unprecedented institutional revolt that united regional football confederations, senior FIFA officials and national associations against what many viewed as an attempt to commercialize the sport’s most valuable assets.
In a statement announcing the reversal, Infantino acknowledged that the proposal had become too divisive to continue.
He said it had become clear that the initiative was creating divisions that no longer served the original objective, regardless of how much support the project might still have retained among member associations.
The abrupt retreat follows several days of escalating criticism after details of the proposed investment structure emerged, exposing deep disagreements over governance, financial transparency and the future ownership of international football’s commercial rights.
The proposal encountered resistance almost immediately after becoming public, but opposition intensified dramatically when UEFA threatened to boycott FIFA competitions unless the plan was abandoned.
Europe’s governing body argued that the World Cup and FIFA’s commercial assets should remain under the exclusive stewardship of football institutions rather than become partially owned by private investors.
UEFA’s 55 member associations unanimously backed the boycott threat, representing a severe challenge to FIFA because European nations account for many of the sport’s strongest national teams, largest broadcasting markets and most valuable commercial partnerships.
The opposition soon expanded beyond Europe.
Concacaf, which represents North America, Central America and the Caribbean, also rejected the proposal, leaving FIFA facing resistance from confederations representing nearly half of its member associations.
With two of football’s most influential regional organizations aligned against the restructuring, approval of the proposal became increasingly uncertain.
Under the original proposal, FIFA intended to create a separate commercial entity known as FIFA Forward before selling approximately 20 percent of the new company to outside investors.
The transaction was expected to raise as much as $4.2 billion from an investment consortium reportedly led by Thrive Eternal, an investment firm managed by Joshua Kushner.
FIFA argued that proceeds from the investment would strengthen football globally by providing each of its 211 member associations with an immediate payment of approximately $20 million while doubling annual development funding to $5 million.
For many smaller football federations, particularly those operating with limited financial resources, the proposal represented an opportunity to secure unprecedented levels of investment for infrastructure, youth development and domestic competitions.
However, critics questioned whether accepting private capital would ultimately shift FIFA’s priorities toward maximizing financial returns rather than protecting the long-term interests of the sport.
Resistance was not limited to external stakeholders.
According to people familiar with internal discussions, senior FIFA officials also expressed concern about both the substance of the proposal and the way it had been developed.
Kevin Lamour, FIFA’s chief operating officer, publicly distanced himself from the initiative, describing the proposed transaction as the project of a single individual rather than a broadly supported institutional strategy.
He also said colleagues within FIFA had been misled during the development of the proposal, remarks that highlighted unusually visible internal tensions inside the organization’s leadership.
Those comments added further pressure on Infantino at a time when confidence in his leadership was already being questioned by some member associations.
Although FIFA presented the restructuring primarily as a financial initiative, opponents increasingly framed the debate as one concerning governance and institutional independence.
UEFA sharply criticized FIFA’s handling of the process, accusing the governing body of pursuing what it described as intimidation rather than consultation.
European officials argued that introducing private shareholders into FIFA’s commercial operations could fundamentally alter decision-making by creating competing obligations between football governance and investor expectations.
The controversy also reignited broader concerns about transparency within international football, particularly given FIFA’s history of governance reforms following corruption scandals that reshaped the organization more than a decade ago.
Many football administrators argued that preserving institutional independence remained essential to maintaining public confidence in the sport’s governing bodies.
The identity of the proposed lead investor also drew considerable attention.
The investment consortium was expected to be led by Thrive Eternal, managed by Joshua Kushner, whose brother, Jared Kushner, is married to Ivanka Trump, daughter of U.S. President Donald Trump.
Although there was no indication that the political connections influenced FIFA’s decision-making, the association attracted additional scrutiny during an already contentious debate over governance and transparency.
The prominence of the prospective investor further elevated public attention surrounding the proposal as criticism spread throughout the football community.
Infantino’s leadership faces renewed questions
The collapse of the initiative represents one of the most significant political setbacks of Infantino’s presidency.
While he has overseen substantial commercial growth during his tenure, including expansion of the men’s and women’s World Cups, the failed restructuring has exposed divisions within FIFA that were previously less visible.
Several national associations are understood to have reconsidered their support for Infantino following the controversy, raising fresh questions about his political standing ahead of the organization’s next presidential election.
Although Infantino remains eligible to seek another term, the failed proposal may become a defining issue during future leadership discussions.
Despite abandoning the restructuring, Infantino indicated that he intends to remain in office and rebuild consensus among football’s governing institutions.
He said his priority would now be bringing stakeholders back together in the spirit of serving the broader interests of the global game.
The decision to withdraw the proposal effectively ends one of the most ambitious attempts to reshape FIFA’s commercial structure.
Rather than pursuing outside investment, the governing body is now expected to continue relying on traditional revenue sources, including broadcasting rights, sponsorship agreements and international tournaments, to finance its global development programs.
The episode nevertheless leaves lasting questions about how FIFA intends to expand revenues while maintaining support from regional confederations that increasingly demand greater consultation over major strategic decisions.
More broadly, the controversy demonstrated that even an organization as powerful as FIFA cannot fundamentally alter the governance of world football without securing broad consensus across its membership.
For now, the abandonment of the commercial spin-off represents a victory for those who argued that football’s most valuable competitions should remain under the collective control of the sport rather than be partially transferred to private investors.
More in Football coverage
- UEFA and Concacaf reject FIFA’s proposed $20 billion commercial venture, raising doubts over private investment in the World Cup and exposing the deepest governance rift in global football in years.
- How history, power, and inequality continue to shape football’s governing body.
- World football’s governing body says official attendance is based on scanned tickets, not visual estimates, following scrutiny over the South Korea-Czech Republic match.
- Britain’s Liberal Democrats call for a breakaway global football governing body, accusing FIFA President Gianni Infantino of allowing political interference and undermining the integrity of the sport during the 2026 World Cup.
- FIFA President Gianni Infantino insisted the governing body’s judicial panels acted independently after U.S. President Donald Trump praised the suspension of Folarin Balogun’s World Cup ban, a decision that drew sharp criticism from UEFA, national federations and leading figures across world soccer.
