Roughly a week and a half on from the end of one of the best ever World Cups, news has dropped that bring FIFA and its president Gianni Infantino – fresh off their massive win in North America – crashing back down to Earth.

The world soccer governing body announced plans Tuesday to set up a separate entity – which would include private investors – that would have control of the commercial and operational rights of one of the globe’s biggest sporting events.

This proposal, though, has come under intense scrutiny and criticism from many around the world, including European governing body UEFA saying the “soul and governance” of the game are under threat.

But what is it about the proposal that has caused such uproar from soccer bodies and authorities, members of the media and fans? Why are so many saying that FIFA is putting soccer up for sale?

What is FIFA’s proposal?

IFA is proposing a new entity called FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE) that will control the commercial side (including broadcast rights, sponsorship, ticketing and licensing) and the operational side (planning, setting up and delivering tournaments) of what it currently does with its own competitions, including the World Cup and the Club World Cup.

FIFA says it would own and have “sole control” of this subsidiary, which it says has an initial equity valuation of $20 billion, and have “exclusive authority” of the sporting side of things, including competitions, governance, match calendars and regulatory/sporting decisions. The governing body said all net benefits of FFE would be reinvested back into the worldwide game.

Included in these proposals is the introduction of private investment into the game; FIFA says it will raise $4.2 billion by partnering with certain “long-term investors who will purchase minority, non-controlling interests in FFE.”

The money raised by the proposal would allow FIFA to provide up to $40 million to all of its 211 member associations: $20 million for the next budget cycle of 2027-2030 (up from $8 million currently budgeted) and an immediate, optional $20 million from the $4.2 billion of private investment. According to the Associated Press, Infantino has set a September 19 deadline for the member associations to accept the optional payment.

There are similar entities in sports currently. For example, Liberty Media owns Formula One’s commercial and operational rights, while motorsport governing body FIA leads the sporting side of things. The intersection of sports with Wall Street is not new – just look at the investment of private equity into the NFL, NBA, MLB and the PGA Tour – but the trend seemingly continues to accelerate into global sports.

The entire proposal though is just that: a proposal. As FIFA itself said in a statement, it still has to be approved by the majority of FIFA’s member associations and by the FIFA Council.

So what’s potentially controversial about the proposal?

First, the proposal was developed rather opaquely. The first news of it was revealed by a report in the Times of London before it was confirmed by FIFA.

Subsequent criticism has come from soccer authorities saying they weren’t consulted on the plans at all before they were released to the public. Both CONCACAF and the Asian Football Confederation released statements saying they were not consulted, with the North and Central America and Caribbean governing body saying it was “deeply concerned by the lack of due process.”

Second, the FFE proposal has brought a lot of criticism due to the involvement of private investors, in particular the main proposed investor group, Thrive Eternal, which is headed up by Joshua Kushner – brother of Jared Kushner, the son-in-law of US President Donald Trump.

The fear is that investors, seeking return on their investments, will push to influence matters beyond their remit in order to maximize their profits.

For example, the newly expanded men’s World Cup allowed for a lot more revenue through additional games, while hydration breaks gave broadcasters opportunities to play more ads if they so chose. There would be even more incentive to expand the World Cup and the Club World Cup further to allow more teams, providing more games for more revenue. This isn’t speculation, but rather something already postulated by Infantino during the 2026 edition. Would investors also pressure FIFA to hold the World Cup more frequently: every two years instead of every four?

That would then affect player welfare and competitions outside of FIFA’s remit, such domestic leagues and continental club competitions like the Champions League. Players are already nearing their physical limits with the additional games, so would more mean additional injuries and affect the product more?

European soccer player union FIFPRO Europe said in a statement that it has “deep concern” over the FFE proposal, saying that it risks turning the World Cup and other competitions into “investable assets for private capital, a move that would fundamentally and irreversibly reshape the incentives underpinning the competitions in which players work, compete and build their careers.”

CNN Sports has reached out to FIFA for comment on the proposals.

UEFA is leading the charge of critics with its strong statement Tuesday, saying the proposed selloff of rights “crosses a line that football’s governing institutions should never cross.”

“The soul and governance of football are not assets to trade – especially with zero transparency as to who gains financially. None of us are the owners of football. It is not FIFA’s to sell,” Europe’s governing body continued.

UEFA added today: “we have learned of FIFA’s deadline to associations to support their proposals or have the one-off payout offer withdrawn. This says everything you need to know about this plan.

“Having held discussions with many stakeholders across the game, UEFA knows there is significant and growing opposition to FIFA’s scheme. FIFA cannot continue to use our sport to enrich themselves and their friends. We can grow the game correctly.

The president of Spain’s La Liga, Javier Tebas, went further still, saying the proposal “didn’t seem like a reform” before adding that “whoever mixes politics, disciplinary measures, money and power without transparency shouldn’t lead anything. Infantino isn’t the solution to FIFA’s governance. He’s the problem.”

CNN Sports has reached out to FIFA regarding the criticisms of its proposals.

It added: “Based on the limited information, we are deeply concerned about the lack of process and governance to get to this point, and the apparent substance and principles involved.”

European Football Clubs – the independent body for club teams in Europe – said it had “serious concern” about the proposals.

UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham has also come out, saying on X that “football does not belong to investors” and “the World Cup is not a product.”

European Commissioner of Sport Glenn Micallef also heavily criticized the proposal and said commission “will study these proposals carefully.”

Many fans have also come out against the proposal with Nick Jones, member of the England Supporters Travel Club, calling it an “abomination of an idea” in an email to members of the FA, acquired by UK journalist Henry Winter.

Has anyone supported the idea?

Given the amount of money involved, yes, there are supporters of the idea.

Czech FA president David Trunda told Sky News Wednesday that he tentatively supports the idea, saying, “I can see the pragmatic benefits for Czech football from working in close co-operation with Gianni Infantino and his team.

“Of course, we need more details, but my personal point of view is that I can see the positive impact of FIFA’s intentions,” Trunda added.

As time goes on, there will surely be more supporters – particularly among smaller, less financially powerful member associations – of Infantino’s idea.

What happens now?

UEFA is reportedly set to meet with its 55 member associations this week to discuss next steps. Among the measures that are reportedly on the table is a boycott of any FIFA-controlled competitions, including the World Cup and Club World Cup. CNN Sports has reached out to UEFA for comment.

If there were to be a boycott of both national teams and club sides, that would likely end any aspirations to create the FFE. Imagine a World Cup without Spain, France or England or a Club World Cup without Chelsea, Paris Saint-Germain, Real Madrid or Barcelona – these wouldn’t be legitimate competitions in the eyes of almost all fans around the planet. However, the likelihood of this actually happening isn’t very high.

Given the annoyance of other continental confederations like CONCACAF and the AFC, it is possible that those other organizations are looking at countermeasures individually or by teaming up with UEFA and/or each other. That being said, neither of their statements seemed as strongly worded as UEFA’s and focused on not being consulted rather than the substance of the proposal.

On the other hand, there is a lot of money at play. As seen by the Czech FA’s tentative support, many associations – particularly in smaller or developing nations – might see that massive windfall as essential to building up the infrastructure or grassroots level of the game in their countries, and something that can’t be passed up. Also, Infantino does command a lot of support among the 211 member nations due to what they see as his focus on them rather than the big power players in UEFA.

Again, it remains to be seen what happens on the FIFA end of things. This could all be voted away if the majority of the member associations are against it when a vote eventually does happen. Also, the public furore might cause Infantino and FIFA to second guess themselves and withdraw the idea, much like the Super League initiative was largely shot down within a few days of its proposal due to fan and media tumult.

Whatever happens next, it’s clear that, for many, this is a fight not only over some dollars and cents, but rather for the soul of the game itself. (CNN)

Update news