FIFA's Private Investment Plan Crumbles as Senior Advisor Resigns, Regional Bodies Threaten Boycott

Gianni Infantino's plan to transform FIFA's commercial operations into a private equity venture is collapsing under the weight of unified opposition from football's regional power centers. On Friday, as the pressure intensified, Carlos Cordeiro—a former head of the United States Soccer Federation and senior advisor to both Infantino and President Trump during this year's World Cup—resigned in protest, calling the deal a "bad deal for football."

The controversy erupted earlier in the week when FIFA announced plans to establish FIFA Forward Enterprise, a new commercial subsidiary valued at roughly $20 billion that would control broadcast rights, sponsorships, ticketing, and licensing for all FIFA competitions, including the World Cup. The organization proposed selling a non-controlling minority stake worth $4.2 billion to private investors, with the consortium expected to be led by Thrive Capital, a fund founded by Joshua Kushner, brother of Jared Kushner. FIFA insisted it was not selling football itself, only a minority stake in a commercial vehicle, but the distinction satisfied almost no one.

Cordeiro, a 69-year-old former Goldman Sachs partner, articulated the core objection in his resignation statement: FIFA already sits on billions in reserves with no debt, and generated $15 billion in revenue during the last four-year World Cup cycle. "If member associations believe additional investment is needed to develop the game, FIFA already has the financial capacity to provide that support from its existing resources," he wrote. "Against that backdrop, selling a permanent stake in football's most valuable asset to raise $4.2 billion makes little sense. It is mortgaging football's future without any compelling justification." He pressed FIFA on fundamental unanswered questions: Why this deal? Why now? What oversight exists? Was there a competitive process? What will investors ultimately gain, and at what cost to football?

Europe moved first and hardest. UEFA, football's governing body for 55 member associations, voted unanimously to boycott future FIFA competitions—potentially starting with the under-20 Women's World Cup on September 5, but certainly including the 2030 men's World Cup—if the plans proceeded. "The World Cup cannot be treated as an investment product," UEFA declared. "No part of it should ever be surrendered to private investors. The World Cup is not for sale." The statement came within hours of the plan's public reporting and reflected years of tension between UEFA and Infantino over ticket prices, governance, and other disputes.

British Prime Minister Andy Burnham, a football enthusiast, added political weight to the criticism. "My view is strengthening that this was an outrageous suggestion," he said on Friday. "The idea that it could even be brought forward, in my view, shows that the FIFA general secretary is the wrong man to lead the organization."

Within days, UEFA's position hardened into a coalition. CONCACAF, representing 41 North American and Caribbean federations, unanimously rejected the plan, though it stopped short of threatening a boycott. The Asian Football Confederation, with 47 members, issued a scathing letter warning that the proposal would never succeed without support from all six regional blocs. The AFC's statement went beyond the FFE proposal itself, flagging what it saw as a deeper problem: FIFA's habit of presenting major initiatives to stakeholders after the direction had already been set. "Such an approach undermines confidence in FIFA's governance framework," the AFC wrote.

Germany's football federation, the DFB, joined the chorus of opposition. President Bernd Neuendorf told public broadcaster ZDF that the plan was "extremely problematic and unacceptable," and predicted it would fail because no investor would proceed without UEFA's backing. Germany had recent experience with similar battles: in 2024, the Bundesliga abandoned plans to sell television rights to foreign investors after fan protests that included tennis balls and remote control cars with smoke bombs being thrown onto pitches. The country's 50+1 ownership model, which prevents single investors from owning a majority stake in clubs, reflects deep cultural resistance to the kind of financial engineering FIFA was now proposing.

Not all regional bodies moved in lockstep. South America's CONMEBOL, whose president Alejandro Dominguez is seen as close to Infantino, took a more measured stance, requesting "additional information and clarifications" rather than issuing threats. In a statement, CONMEBOL acknowledged that commercial and financial decisions are needed but insisted that "football always comes first." Africa's CAF said it would convene an executive committee meeting to examine the proposal. Yet even this measured response amounted to a delay, not an endorsement.

FIFA insisted the plan would proceed. Member associations are obliged to vote by September 19. But Infantino now faces opposition from five of six regional confederations representing the vast majority of FIFA's 211 member associations—a coalition that technically robs him of the majority support he needs. Cordeiro's resignation, coming from someone close to both Infantino and Trump, signals that even those positioned to benefit from the deal see it as indefensible. The question now is whether FIFA will press forward into September or whether the weight of unified opposition will force a retreat.