In brief
FIFA’s proposal to create a commercial subsidiary for its main events and allow external investors to stake in the World Cup has alarmed the Football Association and the Confederation of Europe. The FA says it was unaware of the plan and fears it could give undue influence to private parties, especially if the competitions expand. UEFA has called an urgent meeting to discuss potential fallout, while CONCACAF also voices concerns. Sport authorities highlight the need for due process and the larger implications for global football governance.
The Football Association has warned it is “deeply concerned” over FIFA’s proposal to create a commercial subsidiary that would allow private investors to buy stakes in the world’s flagship competitions.
If proven true, FIFA would be opening the World Cup, Club World Cup and other major events to outside capital. The FA fears that such a move could give undue influence to investors and may lead to large‑scale expansion of the tournaments, further straining the football calendar.
Senior FIFA figures, including at least two vice‑presidents, reportedly were not consulted about the plan before it was announced in February through The Times and Financial Times. “We were completely unaware of this proposal,” an FA spokeswoman said, citing the lack of transparency and the potential breach of governance principles.
UEFA has responded in kind, condemning FIFA’s plan and calling it a “crossed a line” approach. A European congress will be held virtually this week to decide how to tackle the issue, with the confederation raising the possibility of a boycott if FIFA does not scrupulously address the concerns.
CONCACAF also issued a statement expressing disappointment and stressing the importance of due process. The growing backlash mirrors past controversies such as the 2021 European Super League fiasco and future ambitions for a 64‑team World Cup in 2030.
FIFA claims the plan aims to increase global development funding to $10 bn and offer member associations access to up to $20 m in one‑off capital. Whether the move will go ahead remains uncertain, as in‑game stakeholders push back and demand greater transparency.
