FIFA Drops $20 Billion Commercial Venture Sale After Confederations Revolt

By The Edge Research Team

FIFA has abandoned a plan to move its commercial and event operations into a subsidiary and sell a minority stake in it to private investors, ending in three days a proposal that had been valued by FIFA itself at 20 billion dollars. President Gianni Infantino issued the withdrawal on Friday 31 July, saying the project had “created divisions” that were no longer in the interest of its original objective, and that “this proposal will not proceed”.

The structure had been announced on 28 July. Under it, FIFA Forward Enterprise would have taken over the governing body’s commercial and operational event-delivery activities in a company FIFA said it would “own and control permanently”, with outside investors holding minority, non-controlling interests and FIFA retaining majority board representation and sole authority over competitions, the match calendar and regulation. FIFA put the capital to be raised at up to 4.2 billion dollars against a 20 billion dollar equity valuation of the new entity, with the proceeds earmarked for more than 10 billion dollars of development funding for member associations. Two distinct payments were on offer and they are easily confused. The recurring FIFA Forward allocation to each of the 211 associations would have risen from a currently budgeted 8 million dollars to 20 million for the 2027 to 2030 cycle, then to 22 million and 24 million in the two cycles after that. Separately, and additionally, each association could opt into the new FIFA Fast Forward Programme for up to 20 million dollars in one-off capital for special projects, funded directly by the FFE raise. The Fast Forward money has no 8 million dollar predecessor; it is new.

FIFA named the investor side in its own release: a permanent-capital holding company, Thrive Eternal, expected to lead the group, with Greg Maffei of BANN Ventures involved, J.P. Morgan advising FIFA and OpenEconomics engaging prospective investors. Expressions of interest, FIFA said, had come from Europe, the Americas, Asia and Africa. The plan required the approval of a majority of the 211 member associations and of the FIFA Council, with a sign-up deadline of 19 September. No vote was ever held.

The opposition came from the confederations rather than from the investors. UEFA’s 55 associations said on 30 July that they “unanimously and unequivocally reject” the proposal and that “the World Cup is not for sale”, and stated that no UEFA national team would take part in any FIFA competition for as long as the proposals remained alive, absent binding assurances that FIFA would never again open its competitions to private ownership. That is the only boycott threat on the record. CONCACAF’s 41 associations rejected the plan the same day but did not threaten non-participation, citing instead a lack of due process, an artificially short deadline and the absence of review by FIFA’s own governance bodies. Note that UEFA described the plan as transferring ownership interests in the World Cup, which is not how FIFA described the instrument; the characterisation is contested rather than settled. Bloomberg reported that regional bodies and leading clubs drove the collapse.

The governance question did not close with the withdrawal. Bloomberg reported on the same day, under the headline “FIFA Executive Says Blindsided by Infantino’s Privatization Plan”, that a senior FIFA executive said staff had not been told what was coming; FIFA’s chief operating officer is Kevin Lamour, a former UEFA deputy general secretary appointed in November 2024, whose remit covers finance, legal and compliance, audit and member associations. FIFA’s own site had published a defence of the plan on the morning of 31 July, headed “Clarifications on FIFA Forward Enterprise”, insisting that “nobody is selling football” and that without majority member support the entity simply would not be established. Hours later the plan was gone.

The financial backdrop explains both the ambition and the resistance. Infantino told member associations in New York on 18 July, on the eve of the World Cup final, that FIFA expected to “top the USD 15 billion mark” for the 2023 to 2026 cycle, and FIFA has said close to 16 million fans attended the 2026 tournament. An organisation clearing 15 billion dollars over four years was asking its members to accept outside equity in the vehicle that generates it. CONCACAF made the obvious point in its own statement, questioning the need for private equity to fund development programmes after what it called the most profitable World Cup in FIFA’s history.

What was proposed and what happened

Where the confederations stood

The development funding at stake, per member association

Why it matters: The Gulf is on the commercial side of FIFA’s balance sheet rather than the investor side. Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund was named an Official Tournament Supporter of the 2026 World Cup in May, a deal that includes Savvy Games Group and Qiddiya City and follows PIF’s Club World Cup 2025 partnership, and Qatar Airways has been a FIFA Partner since 2017 with its agreement extended to 2030 across the 2026 and 2030 men’s tournaments and the 2027 Women’s World Cup. No GCC entity was named among the prospective FFE investors in any account. The episode is therefore relevant to the region less as a missed investment than as a governance lesson. No price discovery took place: the proposal died on member and confederation opposition before any investor tested the 20 billion dollar valuation, so nothing here tells sovereign investors what the asset is worth. What it does tell them is that in a members’ association, consent is the binding constraint rather than valuation, which is the more useful consideration for anyone weighing sports and media rights where the underlying body is member-owned.

Outlook: FIFA’s commercial arrangements are unchanged, which means the 2027 to 2030 Forward cycle now has to be funded from existing revenue or scaled back to something closer to the current 8 million dollars per association. The more consequential residue is institutional. UEFA has asked for binding assurances against any future private-ownership attempt, and a governing body that put a proposal to its members and withdrew it inside four days will find the next one harder to place. Watch for the FIFA Council’s next scheduled meeting and for whether the Forward increase survives in any form.

Sources: FIFA; UEFA; CONCACAF; Bloomberg; Forbes.

Get Complimentary Insights

Follow us