FIFA has proposed selling a stake in the World Cup tournament business to private-equity investors, triggering widespread objections from regional football bodies.
The move represents a fundamental shift in how the world's most popular sporting event is funded and governed. Critics argue that introducing private equity into the tournament's core business could prioritize profit over the integrity of the game.
FIFA, led by President Gianni Infantino, is holding consultations in Brussels to discuss the proposal. The governing body said the stake sale is necessary to raise approximately $10 billion [1] to fund future World Cup projects.
Opposition has grown across several major confederations, including UEFA, the Asian Football Confederation, and CONCACAF. Within CONCACAF, 41 member associations have rejected the plan [2].
Lise Klaveness, president of the Norwegian Football Federation, warned that the proposal creates a precarious environment for the sport. "This is a very serious situation for the game," Klaveness said.
The controversy has already led to high-level departures. Carlos Cordeiro, a former FIFA adviser, resigned in protest. "We cannot accept a plan that hands over World Cup profits to private equity investors," Cordeiro said.
FIFA has pushed back against the narrative that the organization is relinquishing control of the sport. A FIFA spokesperson said, "Nobody is selling football."
Despite this assurance, regional officials continue to argue that the commercialization of the tournament's ownership structure threatens the sport's global governance model, a system that has traditionally relied on member associations rather than external investors.
“"This is a very serious situation for the game."”
The clash between FIFA and its regional confederations highlights a growing tension between the need for massive capital infusions for infrastructure and the traditional non-profit governance of global sports. By attempting to monetize a stake in the World Cup, FIFA is testing whether the tournament's brand value can be decoupled from its regulatory role, risking a fragmented power structure if member associations continue to boycott the initiative.
