The fallout from the news that Gianni Infantino has drawn up plans to sell stakes in the World Cup to private investors has been predictably substantial, with the proposals drawing widespread criticism.
It is a story that has moved extremely quickly and, following FIFA’s confirmation of the plans in the wake of a report by The Times, there is now the possibility that some of the biggest nations in world football could boycott the game’s most prestigious tournament.
As a saga that threatens to destabilise the global game rumbles on, 101GreatGoals rounds up the latest developments in response to Infantino’s hugely controversial plans.
What does Infantino want to do?
First, just a brief reminder what the FIFA president is proposing.
Under the planned scheme, a company, FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE), would be put together to oversee FIFA’s top competitions in the men’s and women’s games, including the World Cup and the Club World Cup. The plan could see Infantino earn tens of millions and raise the possibility of the World Cup and Club World Cup being held more often than every four years.
FIFA’s 211 member associations would receive a stake that they could either keep or sell to generate income. In addition, it is claimed that Infantino, set to be re-elected unopposed until 2031, would be positioned to become commissioner of the company after his final term as president comes to a close. It is expected he could command a salary of $64m as commissioner.
A majority stake in the company would be owned by FIFA, with private investors taking on around 20 to 30 per cent and the member nations each possessing a small stake. Joshua Kushner — brother of Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared — is the proposed lead investor.
UEFA responds after Infantino sets deadline
Infantino has subsequently written to all 211 member associations, giving them extra incentive to back the plan.
He has told the members they will receive $40m (£30m) if they support the plan, adding that £20m will be immediately available to them on January 1 next year.
However, Infantino gave those members a deadline of September 19 by which to accept to the one-time offer.
After the plans were revealed on Tuesday, UEFA said the proposals cross “a line that football’s governing institutions should never cross”.
And, following the news of Infantino’s offer, European football’s governing body published a further response.
“Today we have learned of Fifa’s deadline to associations to support their proposals or have the one-off payout offer withdrawn. This says everything you need to know about this plan,” a UEFA statement read.
“But having held discussions with many stakeholders across the game, UEFA knows there is significant and growing opposition to FIFA’s scheme. FIFA cannot continue to use our sport to enrich themselves and their friends. We can grow the game correctly. It’s time to prioritise associations, clubs, leagues, players and fans.”
UEFA considering World Cup boycott
UEFA has previously successfully used the threat of a European boycott of the World Cup to defy Infantino, doing so in 2021 when he floated the idea of a biennial World Cup.
And, with UEFA holding an emergency meeting on Thursday, the possibility of a boycott has risen again.
The 100th anniversary World Cup in 2030 is due to be held in large part in Europe, with Spain and Portugal set to host the tournament alongside Morocco. Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay will also host games as part of the centenary celebration.
That makes the idea of a European boycott seem extremely unlikely but, with its member nations set to discuss their response to Infantino’s latest grand idea, that card is still very much on the table.
England’s Football Association joined the dissenting voices, while promising a more definitive response once full details are known.
“We were completely unaware of this proposal and have no substantive details, including what the proposition actually is, and what conditions are attached,” the FA statement read.
“Based on the limited information, we are deeply concerned about the lack of process and governance to get to this point, and the apparent substance and principles involved.
“When the proposal is shared in the full and transparent way now promised by FIFA, we will make our views clear, and comment further.”
It doesn’t appear that everyone in UEFA is aligned, however.
Czech FA president David Trunda seemed to give Infantino’s plans his backing in an interview with Sky News.
“I can see the pragmatic benefits for Czech football from working in close co-operation with [FIFA president] Gianni Infantino and his team,” Trunda said.
“Of course we need more details, but my personal point of view is that I can see the positive impact of FIFA’s intentions.”
CONCACAF expresses concern
CONCACAF, the governing body that represents North America, Central American and Caribbean teams, also responded disapprovingly to news of the proposals.
A host of smaller nations that would seem likely to be among the biggest beneficiaries from Infantino’s scheme fall under CONCACAF, which expressed concern more on the grounds of process rather than the actual details of the plans.
“CONCACAF was only made aware of this matter through media reports and, subsequently, via a media release,” a statement read.
“We are deeply concerned by the lack of due process.
“We share the disappointment of many within our region and the game that this level of detail has been designed and shared publicly before any discussion with the relevant governance bodies and stakeholders has taken place.
“As leaders within football, we are the custodians of the game. Collectively, FIFA, the Confederations and every Member Association have a responsibility to always act in the best interests of the sport. Every decision we make must be guided by good governance, robust processes and long-term stewardship.
“This is the framework within which CONCACAF operates. We trust that all within the FIFA family will act in the same manner.”
The Asian Football Confederation (AFC) also made clear its frustration that it “was not consulted on the proposal.
It added that it is “disappointed that a matter of such significance entered the public domain before the AFC family had been afforded the opportunity to examine and discuss it through the appropriate and established governance channels”.
FIFPRO urges FIFA to reconsider
The plans open the possibility of the World Cup being expanded further from 48 to 64 teams or being played more regularly than every four years to increase revenue for potential private investors.
And the European branch of FIFPRO, the world players’ union, pointed to concerns around the match calendar as it slammed the proposed scheme.
It said in a statement: “FIFPRO Europe has noted with deep concern the proposal to transform the FIFA World Cup and other FIFA competitions into investable assets for private capital, a move that would fundamentally and irreversibly reshape the incentives underpinning the competitions in which players work, compete and build their careers.
“Given the proposal’s potentially far-reaching implications for player welfare, the international match calendar and the future governance of the game, it is particularly troubling that a project of this magnitude has been developed largely behind closed doors and brought close to agreement without any meaningful engagement with those most affected. The decision to bypass the dialogue mechanisms recently established between FIFA and FIFPRO only reinforces these concerns.
“The proposal also raises fundamental concerns about the future governance of world football and the integrity of the game. Stakeholder participation in FIFA’s decision-making has always been limited. It must not now be displaced by commercial influence, allowing financial interests to outweigh the voices of those who play, support and sustain the game. FIFPRO Europe cannot – and will never – support such a model.
“Within FIFA, neither FIFPRO nor players have a vote. Yet they will live with the consequences of these decisions long after the current FIFA leadership has moved on.
“The responsibility now lies with FIFA to reconsider its proposal without further delay. Every national football association, meanwhile, carries a responsibility that extends far beyond today’s financial returns or tomorrow’s commercial projections.
“Governments, public authorities, confederations, leagues, clubs and supporters also have a role to play in ensuring that football remains a public trust, not merely a commercial asset.
“FIFPRO Europe stands ready to work with every institution and stakeholder committed to protecting both the interests of players and the long-term integrity of the game. Football’s future deserves nothing less. And neither do the players who will shape it.”
The European Leagues, in a statement that received the full backing of the Premier League, labelled the proposals a “reckless and divisive development for world football”.
“The World Cup should not be for sale,” its statement read.
“It is not FIFA President’s private equity asset. Its value is created day in and day out by leagues, clubs, players and supporters who are being left without a voice or a vote on this matter. European Leagues firmly reject this proposal.
“Football’s success has always been built on a pyramidal open structure and the delicate balance between domestic and international football. Commercial opportunities must support these foundations, not risk altering them.
“This opaque process and unilateral proposal are part of a long-term pattern in FIFA’s decision-making – a pattern which prompted the European Leagues to lodge a complaint with the European Commission on the basis that FIFA’s imposition of decisions on the international match calendar constitutes an abuse of dominant position that violates European competition law.
“Proposals relating to calendar and competitions, should be developed through transparent, accountable and inclusive processes, with meaningful engagement and consent from all stakeholders whose interests are affected, as explicitly requested by the Court of Justice of the EU in its 2023 Super League ruling. We have held productive meetings with the European Commission about this matter and have confidence that the legal decisions they take will continue to be in the best interests of fans and football communities.
“European Leagues will continue to work with UEFA to safeguard the long-term interests of the game. We have faith that Federations / National Associations around the world will do the same as they scrutinise this proposal from the FIFA President.”
You Should Also Read
