Infantionism

FIFA’s proposal to sell a minority stake in FIFA Forward Enterprise is not merely another commercial deal. It would allow private capital to acquire a direct interest in the revenues and future commercial development of the World Cup and other FIFA competitions. Opposition has begun among football authorities, player organisations and supporters, but it remains scattered. That fragmentation is precisely what FIFA is banking on.

The proposal is to establish FIFA Forward Enterprise — FFE — as a new company containing FIFA’s commercial and event operations, including broadcasting, sponsorship, ticketing, licensing and the delivery of competitions. FIFA intends to raise as much as $4.2 billion by selling private investors up to 20 per cent of the company, based upon a valuation of approximately $20 billion. FIFA says the investment would be minority and non-controlling and that it would retain exclusive authority over football governance, competitions, calendars and sporting decisions.¹

That is the technical description. The practical reality is that investors do not contribute billions of dollars as an act of sporting generosity. They invest to secure returns. Those returns must come from somewhere: more competitions, more matches, more advertising, higher ticket prices, more expensive broadcasting packages, greater commercial intrusion and the constant extraction of additional value from the game.

The proposed lead investor is Thrive Eternal, led by Joshua Kushner, the brother of Jared Kushner, who is married to Donald Trump’s daughter Ivanka. JPMorgan is working with FIFA on the transaction, while Greg Maffei, formerly chief executive of Liberty Media during its ownership of Formula One, has acted as a commercial adviser.² These connections do not by themselves prove wrongdoing. But they make transparency essential, particularly after the increasingly public closeness between Gianni Infantino and the Trump family.

FIFA is presenting the scheme as a magnificent act of redistribution. Its 211 national associations are being offered increased development funding and access to an additional one-off payment of up to $20 million. They have been given until 19 September to respond.³ Money intended for grassroots football is valuable, particularly to smaller associations. But attaching large payments to approval of a fundamental change in the ownership and commercial structure of world football is not an ordinary consultation. It is corporate coercion.

The timing is equally dubious. The proposal arrived immediately after the World Cup, when FIFA could still bask in the tournament’s success, but during the European football holiday, when domestic leagues, supporter organisations and the ordinary match-going public are dispersed. By the time the new season is fully under way, FIFA may hope that the decision will already appear technical, remote and virtually settled.

The World Cup is not a product invented in a Trumpist fantasy. It accumulated its value over generations through players, clubs, volunteers, national associations, local pitches, supporters, public infrastructure and the emotional inheritance passed between families. FIFA administers that inheritance. It did not create it and does not own it in any meaningful moral sense.

Once private investors acquire a financial interest, the pressure for increasing returns does not disappear because their shares are described as “non-controlling”. Influence is not always subject to formal control.  It can operate through commercial advice, financing terms, fees and growth targets, accompanied by the commercial insistence that every tournament, match, broadcast interval and moment of collective passion should produce more revenue.

The opposition has begun, including that of the UK PM Andy Burnham, and that matters. UEFA has condemned the proposal, while Concacaf and the Asian Football Confederation have objected to the lack of consultation and due process. European Football Clubs, representing more than 850 clubs, has also protested that it learned of the plan through the media. FIFPRO has warned against allowing financial interests to outweigh the voices of those who play, support and sustain the game. Together, UEFA, Concacaf and the AFC contain 143 of FIFA’s 211 national associations. If their members stand firm, the proposal can be stopped.⁴

But institutional opposition is not enough. Confederations may negotiate, compromise or protect their own commercial territories. Their objections could become bargaining positions rather than a defence of football’s public inheritance. Supporters cannot subcontract their resistance to organisations that are themselves deeply embedded in the commercialisation of the game.

The immediate task is to alert fans and supporters and mobilise through the protest platforms including: 38 Degrees, Change.org, Avaaz, Eko and Action Network, alongside Football Supporters Europe, the Football Supporters’ Association, national fan organisations, club supporters’ trusts and independent fan media. Existing campaigns show that these networks can mobilise large numbers against FIFA, but there is not yet one recognisable international campaign directed specifically at this proposal.⁵ Reddit, Bluesky, X, Facebook supporter groups, football podcasts and fan channels can spread the argument, but online protest must become visible inside the game itself.

If this campaign is not already under way by the time this is published, now is the time for football supporters everywhere to raise their voices. Banners should appear at pre-season matches and then across every league. Chants, petitions and coordinated supporter statements should name FIFA Forward Enterprise and demand that national associations reject it. Clubs, players and sponsors should be asked publicly where they stand.

The opposition has a real strength: FIFA’s plan has been exposed before it was completed, and powerful football bodies have already broken ranks. Its weakness is fragmentation. Scattered petitions, angry posts and temporary institutional statements can be waited out. What is required now is one clear international demand: you cannot sell a stake in the World Cup or FIFA’s competitions to private investors.

Every ground must become a reminder: you cannot sell what belongs to all of us.

Notes

¹ FIFA describes FFE as a FIFA-owned and controlled subsidiary consolidating its commercial and event operations. It proposes raising up to $4.2 billion from minority, non-controlling investors at an initial valuation of $20 billion.

² Thrive Eternal is expected to lead the proposed investor group. Joshua Kushner is the brother of Jared Kushner, Donald Trump’s son-in-law. JPMorgan is advising FIFA, and former Liberty Media chief Greg Maffei has acted as a commercial adviser.

³ FIFA’s development proposal includes an optional one-off payment of up to $20 million for each of its 211 member associations, alongside increased future funding. Associations were given a 19 September 2026 deadline concerning the initial offer.

⁴ UEFA, Concacaf and the AFC have opposed the process, particularly its lack of transparency and consultation. European Football Clubs also stated that its members had not been consulted.

⁵ A 38 Degrees campaign concerning Trump and the World Cup has attracted more than 17,000 signatures, while earlier Change.org campaigns demonstrate the potential reach of coordinated opposition to FIFA. Neither yet amounts to a unified campaign against FFE itself.