Concacaf rejects FIFA President’s private investment plan

The proposal would have allowed private equity to buy into the commercial rights of football’s crown jewel. However, Concacaf leaders voiced alarm over how the deal was being handled behind closed doors.

“The membership expressed deep concerns about the lack of due process surrounding the proposal, the artificially short deadline imposed, and the absence of any review or approval by the relevant FIFA governance bodies,” the confederation stated following the meeting.

The regional body, which spans North and Central America and the Caribbean, pointedly questioned the financial logic of the pitch. Coming off the back of what was described as “the most profitable FIFA World Cup in history”, member associations could not understand why private investment was needed to bankroll existing and future development programmes.

“History has shown FIFA and the football family what happens when the custodians of the game lose sight of these values,” the statement continued, a direct nod to the corruption scandals that rocked the governing body in the last decade.

Instead of accepting the proposal, Concacaf has tasked its representatives on the FIFA Council with two specific directives: first, to explore how FIFA’s existing vast financial reserves can immediately boost development funding, and second, to formally instruct the FIFA President to route any future matter of this magnitude through proper staffing and council channels, in strict accordance with FIFA statutes.

The rejection marks a significant public rebuke of Infantino’s leadership style, which critics have long accused of concentrating power. For Concacaf, the vote was about drawing a clear line. “Football’s future — and its greatest asset — must remain in the hands of our football family,” the confederation declared, reaffirming a philosophy built on “service, transparent governance, and the long-term stewardship of football”.

UEFA threatens boycott 

UEFA’s 55 European member associations have voted unanimously to boycott all FIFA competitions, including the men’s and women’s World Cups, if FIFA proceeds with plans to sell stakes in its tournaments to private investors. The Asian Football Confederation and Concacaf have also rejected the proposal, and combined, with Europe, all three blocs have enough votes to block it.

FIFA president Gianni Infantino wants to create a commercial subsidiary to run its main events, with external investors — reportedly led by the US firm Thrive Eternal — able to buy minority stakes. Infantino has offered member associations $40 million each to back the plan, with a 19 September deadline to access the first payment. Interestingly Thrive Eternal is reportedly founded by Joshua Kushner - the brother of Jared Kushner who is the son-in-law of US President Donald Trump.

UEFA has condemned the proposal in strong terms, calling it an "abdication of FIFA's duty," "governance by intimidation”, and stating that “the World Cup is not for sale”. The atmosphere at the UEFA meeting was described as venomous, with leaders saying they had no prior knowledge of Infantino’s secret discussions. UEFA officials say they hope a boycott will not be necessary, but felt they had no choice but to issue a threat proportionate to what they view as an existential danger to the sport.

Infantino pushes back

Nonetheless, Infantino is pushing forward with the controversial plan. FIFA needs 106 of its 211 member votes to pass the plan.

In response, FIFA issued a statement claiming the consultation process was disrupted by "incorrect media reports," reaffirmed its commitment to an open vote, and insisted that "nobody is selling football”.

The plan, detailed in a JP Morgan document, would create a commercial subsidiary (FIFA Forward Enterprise) to run its events and expand tournaments to generate more revenue, though the document does not mention the women's game. FIFA has reportedly offered member associations $40 million if they back the plan. However, UEFA has accused FIFA of using football to enrich themselves, while FIFA defends the proposal as a way to give member associations more ownership of commercial opportunities.