Coverage spread: 2 sources — 2 center
Lean ratings via AllSides / Media Bias-Fact-Check. How this works.
A record-breaking World Cup fuels a controversial cash-out plan
FIFA president Gianni Infantino is pushing a proposal to sell a minority stake in the World Cup just days after closing out what the organization calls the most profitable tournament in its history. FIFA’s own figures put 2026 World Cup revenue at roughly $9 billion to $13 billion, above the $11 billion the organization had forecast, and total revenue for the 2023-2026 cycle (covering the men’s World Cup, Women’s World Cup and Club World Cup) is on pace to exceed $15 billion — about double the $7.5 billion generated during the 2022 Qatar cycle. Infantino called the result proof the tournament “opened a lot of doors, a lot of opportunities, a lot of possibilities.”
Nine days after the tournament ended, FIFA unveiled a new initiative called FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE) on July 28. Under the plan, FIFA would create a commercial subsidiary valued at $20 billion, remaining under FIFA’s control while selling a roughly 20% minority stake to outside investors to raise an estimated $4.2 billion. The investor group is expected to be led by Thrive Eternal, a fund created by Thrive Capital founder Joshua Kushner (brother of Jared Kushner). FIFA says it would keep control of scheduling, governance and regulatory decisions, and that annual payouts to its 211 member associations would keep rising through 2038. A report cited by Forbes said the arrangement could eventually make Infantino commissioner or CEO of the new company after his FIFA presidency ends in 2031, potentially earning him a salary in the tens of millions.
The money on the table — and the backlash
To win support, FIFA initially offered each of its 211 member associations $20 million to accept the deal, then doubled that to $40 million the next day amid pushback. FIFA set September 19 as the deadline for members to vote, with 75% approval required by its own charter — though Forbes notes a simple majority of 106 votes is the more immediate threshold being discussed for the plan to advance. As of the reporting, no member associations had publicly committed to a “yes” vote.
Opposition has been swift and broad. All 55 UEFA members have said they will vote no and boycott FIFA competitions in protest — notable because European teams have won 13 of the 23 men’s World Cups since 1930, took four of the last five titles (including this year’s, when Spain beat Argentina in the final), and hold six of FIFA’s top 10 rankings. CONCACAF, representing 35 votes across North America, Central America and the Caribbean, cited “deep concerns about the lack of due process.” The Asian Football Confederation, with 41 votes, also came out against the plan, with one soccer official telling the Telegraph its intervention was the “killer punch,” declaring the deal “dead and buried.” Collectively, associations representing at least 131 votes have signaled opposition — enough to block the plan even under a majority threshold.
Internally, FIFA has also faced dissent. Carlos Cordeiro, a senior adviser to Infantino, resigned in protest on Friday. FIFA Chief Operating Officer Kevin Lamour said staff had been “deceived” by the plan’s lack of transparency, calling it a “one-person scheme” that should not proceed and adding he was willing to lose his job over the objection.
Underlying financial structure fueling resentment
Fortune’s reporting connects the revolt to how FIFA structured the 2026 tournament itself: security, transportation and stadium retrofit costs were pushed onto the 16 host cities, while FIFA retained revenue from ticketing, sponsorship and media rights. That arrangement, paired with the new proposal to sell a stake in future commercial revenue to outside investors, has fed criticism from fans, analysts and governing bodies that, as one line of criticism put it, the sport “is not FIFA’s to sell,” with concerns that investor pressure could push the organization to further maximize revenue at the expense of the game.
How coverage differs
Fortune frames the story around the tension between record profits and who bears the costs, emphasizing Europe’s historical dominance in the tournament as context for its threatened boycott and detailing the revenue-sharing structure that leaves host cities absorbing expenses. Forbes’ coverage (via Mary Roeloffs) focuses more narrowly on the vote-counting mechanics — tallying confederation-by-confederation opposition, the 106-vote threshold, and the internal FIFA resignations and criticism from Cordeiro and Lamour — presenting the deal as already effectively doomed. Neither outlet reports any association publicly backing the plan, and both agree the proposal was rolled out without adequate consultation with confederations, fueling accusations of a rushed, opaque process centered on Infantino personally.
Why it matters
The dispute tests how much authority Infantino, FIFA’s president since 2016, can exercise over the organization’s finances and governance, and whether outside private capital — led by a fund tied to the Kushner family — should have any claim on World Cup revenue. With European, North/Central American/Caribbean and Asian confederations all signaling opposition, the plan appears to lack the votes to pass by the September 19 deadline, raising questions about FIFA’s next move, the fate of the $40 million per-association payments already floated, and Infantino’s own position after adviser resignations and internal staff criticism of his leadership.
Sources
Featured photo: Bryan Berlin via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0)