FIFA president Gianni Infantino has defended his plan to sell equity stakes in a new $20 billion commercial subsidiary, insisting it is a proposal rather than an obligation, as opposition has widened from UEFA alone to confederations representing 143 of FIFA’s 211 member associations. A hard September deadline tied to development funding has intensified accusations that FIFA is pressuring its own membership into accepting the plan.
FIFA president Gianni Infantino defended his proposal to sell up to 20% of a new $20 billion commercial subsidiary to outside investors on Thursday, telling reporters the plan was a proposal and not an obligation, and insisting FIFA continues to govern football without external interference, The National reported. The defence came as opposition to the plan widened dramatically, with confederations representing 143 of FIFA’s 211 member associations, including UEFA, CONCACAF and the Asian Football Confederation, now having criticised or raised concerns about the proposal, according to The National. UEFA has called an emergency meeting of its 55 members for Thursday evening to agree a unified response, with a potential World Cup boycott still under discussion.
Infantino Says Equity Sale Is “Not An Obligation”
The National reported that Infantino told reporters FIFA’s flagship tournaments, including the men’s and women’s World Cup, would always remain under FIFA’s control regardless of the outcome of the equity sale plan. His comments were his first direct public response since UEFA and other confederations began publicly criticising the proposal earlier in the week, and were widely read as an attempt to defuse growing anger without abandoning the plan itself.
FIFA Sets September Deadline For Federations To Back The Plan
The National reported that Infantino has given FIFA’s 211 member federations until 19 September to support the proposal or risk losing access to a one-off payout tied to the plan. Global Banking and Finance reported that UEFA specifically highlighted the existence of this deadline in its own statement, saying the requirement that federations support the proposal or have the payout offer withdrawn said everything necessary about the nature of the plan. Under the broader funding structure, Prokerala reported that FIFA has proposed increasing regular development funding for member associations from $8 million to $20 million per federation for the 2027-30 cycle, with further increases in subsequent cycles, alongside the one-off payment now tied to federations’ support for the equity sale.
UEFA Accuses FIFA Of Enriching “Themselves And Their Friends”
The National reported that UEFA issued two separate statements condemning the plan within 24 hours, with the sharper of the two accusing FIFA of using football to enrich itself and its associates, and calling on the organisation to prioritise national associations, clubs, leagues, players and fans instead. The escalation in language, from UEFA’s earlier warning that the plan crossed a line football’s institutions should never cross, to a direct accusation of self-enrichment, marks a significant hardening of the confederation’s public position over a matter of days.
Opposition Now Spans Three Confederations
CONCACAF And The AFC Detail Their Objections
Info Petite Nation reported that CONCACAF president Victor Montagliani said he was unaware of the plan’s details until they became public, despite his federation’s role in successfully co-hosting the 2026 World Cup, and that CONCACAF said it learned of the proposal only through media reports rather than through any formal consultation. The confederation said it remained committed to good governance and long-term stewardship, and expected all parts of the FIFA family to act the same way. The Asian Football Confederation separately issued a statement expressing disapproval of the process, according to the same report.
Thursday’s Emergency Meeting And The Boycott Question
The National reported that UEFA president Aleksander Ceferin has called an emergency meeting for Thursday evening, at which the confederation’s 55 member associations will attempt to agree a unified position on how to respond to Infantino’s plan. Info Petite Nation reported that a boycott of FIFA tournaments by European teams remains among the options under consideration, though discussions have specifically touched on reluctance to extend any boycott to the Women’s World Cup, given that the equity plan is primarily focused on monetising the men’s World Cup and Club World Cup. The National reported that this is not the first time UEFA has used the threat of a boycott to shape FIFA’s plans: in 2021, FIFA abandoned a proposal to hold the World Cup every two years after facing a similar threat from European federations.
A Deepening Governance Crisis For FIFA
What began as a dispute confined to UEFA has, within days, become a governance crisis spanning the majority of FIFA’s membership by association count. ESPN reported that FIFA is working with the financial services firm J.P. Morgan on the plan, and that one of the named prospective investors is Thrive Eternal, a fund launched by Joshua Kushner, whose brother Jared Kushner is a son-in-law of President Trump, a detail that has fuelled separate concerns about FIFA’s political ties following the men’s World Cup held partly in the United States this year.
Why This Matters For Saudi Arabia’s 2034 World Cup
FIFA is the body responsible for overseeing Saudi Arabia’s preparations to host the 2034 World Cup, and the same governance dynamics now on display, a major financial decision announced with limited prior consultation, a hard deadline used to pressure member federations into compliance, and a defensive public posture from Infantino once the criticism became public, are directly relevant to how the organisation manages its relationship with Saudi Arabia over the coming decade.
The Same Pressure Tactics Could Shape 2034 Oversight
UEFA’s specific objection to FIFA’s September deadline, that federations are being pressured to support a plan or lose funding, mirrors concerns already raised by human rights organisations and legal complainants about the compressed, uncontested timeline that led to Saudi Arabia’s selection as 2034 host. In both cases, critics allege FIFA structured a major decision in a way that limited the ability of stakeholders, whether member federations or the wider football community, to meaningfully object before the outcome was effectively settled. A FIFA leadership willing to use funding deadlines to secure support for one major initiative raises reasonable questions about what tools it might use to manage dissent over Saudi Arabia’s hosting arrangements as 2034 approaches.
Broader Debate Over Accountability And Sportswashing
Infantino’s insistence that the equity sale is merely a proposal has done little to calm the confederations now opposing it, and the swift escalation from a single UEFA statement to open criticism from 143 member associations suggests the underlying trust between FIFA’s leadership and its membership has worn thin. Neither FIFA nor Infantino has directly addressed UEFA’s accusation that the organisation is enriching itself and its associates. For rights organisations and federations already questioning the transparency of FIFA’s Saudi 2034 process, Thursday’s emergency meeting, and whether it produces a genuine change of course from FIFA or simply another deferred confrontation, is likely to be read as a test case for how much real leverage FIFA’s own membership retains over the organisation’s biggest decisions.