A children's coach at a regional academy somewhere in Poland or Portugal receives part of his salary each month from a FIFA football development program. It is the same "grassroots" branch of money that flows from the sale of World Cup broadcasting rights and sponsorship contracts. Now this branch has found itself at the center of the sharpest conflict in world football governance in the past decade — and the outcome will determine how much money reaches such coaches, clubs and national teams in the coming years.
$20 billion deal
On Thursday, July 30, all 55 European national football associations voted at an emergency UEFA meeting to boycott FIFA competitions — including men's and women's world championships and the club World Cup — if federation president Gianni Infantino does not abandon his plan to sell a stake in tournament ownership rights to private investors.
The proposal involves creating FIFA Forward Enterprise, which would combine the organization's commercial rights — broadcasting, sponsorship, ticket sales, licensing — and operational activities for conducting international tournaments. The total value of the enterprise is estimated at $20 billion, with 20% to go to private investors. JP Morgan Chase & Co is to serve as financial consultant on the deal, and Thrive Capital, whose chief executive is Joshua Kushner — the brother of Jared Kushner, Donald Trump's son-in-law — is to lead the investor group. FIFA insists that Jared Kushner himself will not participate in the project.
Of the $4.2 billion from the deal, $4.2 billion was planned to be directed to the FIFA Fast Forward program, and overall, by FIFA's estimates, implementing the plan could increase world football funding to $10 billion. These are the exact funds that Europe is now rejecting, instead demanding legally binding guarantees that private capital will never again gain access to managing FIFA competitions.
Why money is not the main issue
UEFA explained the logic of its refusal directly: once an external investor acquires a stake in a tournament, commercial returns become a permanent obligation rather than a bonus. This means pressure on match calendars, tournament formats, broadcasting rights sales and sponsorship deals — decisions that were previously made based on the interests of the game will now be made based on shareholder expectations.
"The World Cup cannot be treated as an investment asset. It is one of the greatest treasures of world football, created by generations of footballers, national teams and supporters on all continents. No part of it can be handed over to private investors," UEFA stated.
Former FIFA President Sepp Blatter, despite his reputation as someone under whose leadership the federation faced corruption allegations, this time sided with critics of his successor. "Football does not belong to one person or institution. Football belongs to the people," he told Reuters, adding that the commercialization of the game is going too far.
Who else opposes it — and what it means for smaller federations
On July 30, the Confederation of North and Central American and Caribbean Football (CONCACAF) also rejected Infantino's plan, accusing FIFA of crossing a "red line." This is critical because most of FIFA's 211 members are not wealthy European federations but small national associations in Asia, Africa and Oceania that have for years depended on FIFA grants for building fields, paying coaches and transporting youth national teams. If a portion of commercial income goes to shareholders instead of into the development fund, these federations will feel the deficit first — long before supporters of top clubs even notice.
- Media companies Netflix, Disney and YouTube intend to compete with Fox for broadcasting rights to the 2030 and 2034 World Cups in the United States.
- FIFA is projected to receive more than $9 billion in revenue from the 2026 World Cup.
What it means for Ukraine
The Ukrainian Football Association is one of the 55 votes supporting the boycott. For a country whose sports infrastructure has suffered losses due to war, and whose financing of children's and youth schools and women's football is directly or indirectly linked to FIFA grant programs, any redistribution of money in favor of private shareholders is not an abstract corporate dispute but a question of whether there will be enough funds to restore fields and pay coaches in the coming years.
If Infantino does not withdraw the plan by October, when playoff matches of the women's World Cup qualifying tournament are scheduled, the boycott will become reality as early as this fall — and Ukraine along with all of Europe will miss the first matches. The question is whether the FIFA president is willing to risk an organizational split for a deal whose benefits, under the current proposal, would first be seen by investors on Wall Street, and only then by, say, a children's school coach in Kyiv or Odesa.
