Credits: Kremlin.ru, CC BY 4.0.
FIFA wants to bring together its commercial rights and the operation of its tournaments in FIFA Forward Enterprise. This subsidiary would be open to minority private stakes. Announced on Tuesday, July 28, the deal could raise up to $4.2 billion to fund the development of soccer. Sepp Blatter sees it as selling the game. But the project has not been adopted, nor is it legally equivalent to selling off the World Cup.
What FIFA Wants to Put Into Its Commercial Subsidiary
In its July 28 statement, FIFA presents FIFA Forward Enterprise, or FFE, as a company it would own and control. This subsidiary would bring together two areas that are now at the heart of its business. The first would cover commercial rights: broadcasting, sponsorship, ticketing, and licensing. The second would concern the operational organization of its men’s, women’s, and youth tournaments.
The wording of “selling the World Cup” therefore oversimplifies the deal. FIFA is not proposing to transfer legal ownership of the competition, nor to sell the association itself. It is considering opening the capital of a company that would collect and exploit part of the revenue generated by its competitions. For investors, the asset sought would be less the trophy than the future commercial cash flows tied to the tournaments.
FFE would seek to raise up to $4.2 billion later in 2026. Its initial valuation would reach $20 billion. The body promises “minority” and “non-controlling” stakes. A Reuters report, citing a source familiar with the matter, mentions an opening of up to 20% of the capital. The official statement, however, confirms no exact percentage.
FIFA cites Thrive Eternal as the expected lead of the investor group, subject to the necessary agreements and approvals. It also says it has engaged J.P. Morgan and notes that OpenEconomics is talking with potential investors. The final list of participants has not been published. Reuters describes Thrive Eternal as a vehicle launched by Thrive Capital. Joshua Kushner founded that firm. He is the brother of Jared Kushner, Donald Trump’s son-in-law. No public document reviewed, however, establishes any direct involvement of the Trump family in FFE.
Why Sepp Blatter Says It’s “Selling Our Game”
Sepp Blatter reacted a few hours after the announcement. In a message posted on X, the former FIFA president denounces the closeness between Gianni Infantino and the U.S. president. According to him, it has taken on a financial dimension that is harmful to soccer. Blatter, who led FIFA from 1998 to 2015, concludes: “No one has the right to sell our game.”
This statement links a known fact — the publicly displayed political closeness between Infantino and Donald Trump — to an interpretation of the financial project. It does not prove a conflict of interest or any role for the U.S. president in the deal. The name cited by FIFA is Thrive Eternal, not that of a member of the Trump family. The personal and financial ties surrounding this structure justify demands for transparency. At this stage, they do not allow us to conclude who will actually invest.
Opposition goes beyond Blatter. In a statement carried by AFP and France 24, UEFA says the project crosses a line. In its view, the soul and governance of soccer are not assets to be negotiated. Its criticism focuses mainly on the lack of transparency about the financial beneficiaries. It also denounces the risk of mixing FIFA regulation with the return expectations of private shareholders.
FIFA responds on the issue of formal control. It says it would retain a majority on FFE’s board of directors. It would also keep exclusive authority over sporting governance, competitions, the international calendar, and regulatory decisions. Outside investors would have no operational role, according to FIFA. These commitments matter, but for now they remain those of a statement. The subsidiary’s bylaws and shareholder agreements are not public.
A Funding Promise That Still Has 211 Federations to Convince
Gianni Infantino’s main argument is development. Thanks to the fundraising, FIFA wants to create a voluntary program called FIFA Fast Forward. Each of its 211 member associations could request up to $20 million at a time. These funds would finance special projects, such as stadiums or training centers.
At the same time, the body proposes increasing the FIFA Forward allocation from $8 million to $20 million per federation for the 2027-2030 cycle. It would rise to $22 million for 2031-2034, then to $24 million for 2035-2038. Adding in its existing programs, FIFA says it is putting forward more than $10 billion in funding. That sum would be devoted to development over the next four years.
These amounts are conditional targets, not sums already raised or distributed. A $20 billion valuation also does not mean $20 billion available. It serves as the benchmark for setting the price of FFE shares. Likewise, the capital contributed by investors, the subsidiary’s future profits, and development spending are three different figures. The statement promises to reinvest net profits in soccer. It still does not spell out the timeline, the costs, or the oversight mechanisms for that reallocation.
The project cannot be launched by FIFA’s administration alone. It must win the support of a majority of member associations and the necessary approvals from the FIFA Council. This double lock is presented as a democratic safeguard. It also creates a particular responsibility for the federations, called on to judge an operation from which they would be the first financial beneficiaries.
In France, FFF president Philippe Diallo reacted on France Inter. He says he discovered this major project through a press release, without having the details needed. He announced that he wants to speak with the main European federations and with the UEFA president. His reaction highlights the gap between FIFA’s announced consultation and the level of information its members publicly have.
What the “Non-Controlling” Nature Does Not Resolve
A minority stake means investors do not, together, hold a majority of the capital. It does not rule out other economic or contractual rights. These could concern board representation, access to information, or protection against certain decisions. They could also include priority on distributions, exit clauses, or a veto over exceptional transactions. The real scope of the term “non-controlling” will therefore depend on FFE’s bylaws and the agreement reached with its shareholders.
Several essential details are still missing. The exact share being sold, the final price, and the company’s legal domicile remain unknown. The same is true for the board makeup, share classes, and dividend policy. Exit rights and the identity of all investors have also not been published. The method behind the $20 billion valuation is not explained either.
The promised separation between the commercial and sporting sides will also need to be tested. The schedule, the number of matches, or the format of a competition fall under sporting decisions. They also determine the value of broadcast, sponsorship, and ticketing rights. FIFA retaining regulatory authority therefore does not erase the possibility of conflicting interests. Revenue growth may run up against the burden placed on players or the balance between competitions.
It also does not prove that investors would dictate those choices. To assess the risk, we will need to know their precise rights and how board members are appointed. We will also need to examine the rules planned in the event of a conflict between FIFA’s sporting mission and FFE’s financial interest.
A Project Still Far From a Done Deal
As of July 29, FIFA says it has launched a consultation and wants to raise the capital later this year. It gives no vote date, no timeline for creating FFE, and no final list of investors. The Council has not publicly approved the deal, and no majority of member associations has been announced.
The debate is therefore not only about Blatter’s provocative wording. It concerns the nature of the revenue FIFA would agree to share and the length of that commitment. It also concerns the safeguards capable of preventing a minority economic stake from turning into lasting influence. As long as the legal and financial documents remain unknown, the promise of control can be verified only in principle, not in its mechanisms.