Uefa convenes emergency meeting to oppose Fifa's controversial World Cup privatization plan

On Thursday afternoon, the fifty-five national football associations of Europe will gather—though not in person—to chart a response to something that has left them feeling blindsided and angry. Fifa, under president Gianni Infantino, wants to sell a fifth of its World Cup and other competitions to private investors. The deal is being brokered by Thrive Eternal, an investment vehicle owned by Joshua Kushner, brother-in-law to Ivanka Trump. Most of Europe's football leadership learned about this not from Fifa directly, but from the media. That fact alone has become the story within the story.

The mechanics are straightforward enough on the surface. Fifa has written to all 211 of its member associations with a deadline: decide by September 19 whether to accept the arrangement. Those who do will receive the first twenty million dollars of a promised forty million dollar package. Those who decline lose the offer entirely. Uefa's statement on this was blunt: "This says everything you need to know about this plan." The organization had already accused Fifa of crossing a line. Now it was preparing to make its position official across the continent.

What makes this moment significant is the rare alignment of opposition. The European Leagues organization called the proposal reckless and divisive, insisting the World Cup is not for sale as a private equity asset. Fifpro, the global players' union, expressed deep concern that the move would transform competitions into investable assets for capital and reshape the fundamental incentives of the game. Javier Tebas, president of La Liga, was more pointed still, suggesting Infantino was using development money to buy votes ahead of the next Fifa congress in March. Hans-Joachim Watzke, vice-president of the German Football Association and president of Borussia Dortmund, told a German magazine that a line had been crossed—that if European football stood united against these plans, it would carry considerable weight.

Fifa's defense, released in an eight-page document and a video from Infantino himself, rested on a different logic. The organization argued that too little of football's commercial value reaches the parts of the game that need it most. The money could fund better pitches, stronger national teams, more pathways for young players, and greater support for women's football. Infantino framed it as an opportunity, not an obligation—part of a democratic consultation process. He pointed to the qualification of Cape Verde, Curacao, Jordan, and Uzbekistan for the World Cup as evidence of Fifa's positive work, though the expansion to forty-eight teams played a role in that outcome. Fifa also cited Formula 1, La Liga, Ligue 1, and the Bundesliga as precedents for private commercial operations, and insisted that private investors would have no influence over the competition itself.

Yet the manner of the proposal has proven as controversial as its substance. The fact that Debbie Hewitt, chairwoman of the English Football Association and a Fifa vice-president, learned of the plan through media reports rather than direct communication speaks to the governance questions at stake. Uefa's unease has been echoed by confederations across Asia, South America, and North and Central America. One Uefa member—the Czech Republic Football Association—has broken ranks, with president David Trunda saying his organization can see pragmatic benefits for Czech football in the arrangement.

What gives Uefa real leverage is the simple arithmetic of the 2026 World Cup. Three of the tournament's four semi-finalists will be European nations. If Uefa's members were to withdraw en masse, the financial viability of the entire concept would collapse. This is understood as the outer limit of what might be possible—a nuclear option that few believe will be deployed, but which concentrates the mind considerably. The Thursday meeting will determine whether Europe speaks with one voice, or whether the unity fractures under the weight of competing interests and the promise of development funding.