Coverage spread: 2 sources — 1 left · 1 right
Lean ratings via AllSides / Media Bias-Fact-Check. How this works.
What happened
FIFA President Gianni Infantino’s plan to sell stakes in the World Cup and other major tournaments to private investors has collapsed after a fierce backlash from European football, according to reporting from the New York Post and the Guardian. The proposed deal, reportedly valued around $20 billion, would have spun off FIFA’s commercial assets and sold a large stake to outside investors, with promises of major payouts to smaller member federations. The New York Post reports that the plan involved Josh Kushner’s Thrive Capital, with JPMorgan playing an advisory role, and notes that Josh Kushner is the brother of Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law.
UEFA, representing all 55 European national federations, declared it had lost confidence in Infantino’s leadership after learning of the secret negotiations. In a statement quoted by the New York Post, UEFA said “the current FIFA leadership has not only lost UEFA’s confidence but also that of many other members of the football family.” UEFA also criticized the process itself, objecting to “secret schemes on fast track timescales, cooked up by faceless individuals,” and pointed out that FIFA already holds more than $5 billion in cash reserves that could be used to support the game rather than pursuing a private sale.
The New York Post further reports that senior FIFA officials, described by four sources within the organization, are now pushing an internal effort nicknamed “Kill The Monster” aimed at forcing Infantino out. One unnamed FIFA executive is quoted saying “This was a step too far, it’s time to kill the monster.” A second source said FIFA may not hold a formal no-confidence vote, but that executives intend to pressure Infantino into resigning voluntarily rather than face a more embarrassing public ouster.
How the coverage differs
The New York Post frames the story primarily as a power struggle and possible leadership crisis inside FIFA, emphasizing exclusive details about the internal “Kill The Monster” campaign, the Kushner family connection to the failed deal, and UEFA’s explicit statement of no confidence in Infantino. Its reporting relies heavily on unnamed insider sources describing backroom maneuvering and the scale of FIFA’s cash reserves.
The Guardian’s piece takes a different angle, focusing less on the boardroom intrigue and more on the collateral impact the privatization scheme — and the boycott threat used to fight it — would have had on women’s football. The Guardian notes that UEFA had threatened that European national teams would refuse to participate in any FIFA competition unless the sale plan was fully abandoned and FIFA gave binding guarantees never to reopen its governance or competitions to private ownership. Because of the timing, that threatened boycott would have first struck youth and women’s tournaments: the Under-20 Women’s World Cup in Poland next month, the Under-17 Women’s World Cup, European qualifying playoffs for the senior Women’s World Cup starting in October (including England’s two-legged playoff against Greece), and ultimately the 2027 Women’s World Cup in Brazil. The Guardian stresses the financial stakes for women’s football specifically, noting the 2023 Women’s World Cup generated more than $570 million in revenue and was the first edition to break even, with FIFA targeting $1 billion in revenue from the 2027 tournament.
The Guardian also offers a more critical, analytical tone toward Infantino personally, juxtaposing his self-description as a father of four daughters and past praise from FIFA chief football officer Jill Ellis for his commitment to women’s football against the fact that his own sale plan put women’s tournaments at risk of becoming bargaining chips in a boycott standoff. Both outlets agree that UEFA’s opposition was decisive in killing the deal and that the episode has severely damaged trust in Infantino’s leadership, but the Post centers on his political survival while the Guardian centers on which parts of the sport bore the brunt of the fight.
Why it matters
The dispute represents one of the most serious governance challenges to Infantino’s FIFA presidency, with all 55 UEFA member nations, along with fans, clubs, leagues and political figures, uniting against a plan to bring private equity into the ownership structure of the World Cup. UEFA’s demand for a full accounting of how the proposal was developed in secret, and its refusal to rule out further action, suggests the fallout is not over even though the immediate sale plan has been scrapped. Reports of an internal push to force Infantino out point to a deeper leadership crisis within FIFA’s upper ranks. Meanwhile, the Guardian’s reporting underscores a less visible but significant consequence: because of the competition calendar, any boycott fight over FIFA’s governance would have landed first and hardest on women’s and youth football, tournaments that are still establishing sustainable revenue models and depend heavily on uninterrupted international competition to keep growing.
Sources
Featured photo: FIFA via Wikimedia Commons (Public domain)