Gianni Infantino’s proposal to sell off part of FIFA’s major tournaments is looking in serious jeopardy after the Asian Football Federation (AFC) on Friday joined UEFA and CONCACAF in expressing its “serious concerns”.
FIFA’s idea is to sell stakes in its flagship events, including the men’s and women’s World Cup, to investors and form a new subsidiary – FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE). FIFA says Thrive Eternal, an American venture capital firm founded by Joshua Kushner – the brother of US president Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared – will lead the investor group.
UEFA was quick to outline its disapproval with its 55 Member Associations (MAs) also vowing to boycott any FIFA-sanctioned event until the plan was shelved, while CONCACAF also gave it a thumbs down.
Infantino requires 106 of the 2011 MAs to give their approval for the scheme to progress. The rejection from UEFA and CONCACAF means 96 have already said no, making the AFC’s input critical.
And while their statement did not necessarily indicate their 47 MAs would vote against the proposals, it is clear that is what they would advise.
The statement read: “The AFC has observed with deep concern the developments of recent days relating to the proposed establishment of FFE and the uncertainty that has emerged across the global football community.
“The fact that the situation has reached the point where the real possibility of a FIFA World Cup boycott has entered public discourse should concern everyone who cares about the future of our game. Football should never have been placed in such a position.
“Against this backdrop, and in light of the clear positions expressed by UEFA and CONCACAF, as well as the unprecedented divisions that have emerged across the football world, the AFC believes that the proposed FFE cannot realistically achieve the necessary broad consensus and unity required to move forward. The FIFA World Cup is the pinnacle of global football and derives its strength from the participation of all Confederations and the world’s leading football nations. Any proposal that risks undermining the unity and universal character of the competition must be reconsidered.”
AFC attack FIFA processes
The AFC statement also attacked the lack of due process in the FFE scheme and believes it is part of a wider problem.
It continued: “While the immediate debate centres on FFE, the AFC considers this issue extends far beyond a single proposal. Rather, it has exposed fundamental weaknesses in FIFA’s consultation and decision-making processes that must now be addressed. While the AFC notes FIFA’s latest clarification on the proposal, the central concerns surrounding governance, institutional process and meaningful consultation remain unanswered.
“A proposal of such significance, with the potential to affect the commercial, sporting and strategic future of world football, must not emerge through processes that leave Confederations, Member Associations (MAs) and even FIFA’s own governing bodies, including the FIFA Council, feeling sidelined. The primary objective for world football must be to ensure that decisions of such magnitude are being developed through processes that are anchored on transparency and command the confidence of the football community.
“This is not the first occasion where major stakeholders have been confronted with significant initiatives after the direction of travel appears to have already been determined. Such an approach undermines confidence in FIFA’s governance framework and diminishes the authority of its statutory bodies. No subsequent consultation process, however well intentioned, can replace early engagement with the appropriate FIFA bodies and the football family.
“The AFC believes this moment must become a catalyst for strengthening institutional reform.”
FIFA blames media for negative response to FFE scheme
The AFC’s stance is a major blow to FIFA and Infantino, in particular.
Having been criticised by UEFA and CONCACAF in the past 24 hours, FIFA responded this morning, blaming “incorrect media reports” for the negativity.
A FIFA statement read: “We have heard the feedback provided by the respective confederations in relation to the proposed establishment of FFE and would like to address the issues that have surfaced since the initial media reporting on Tuesday.
“FFE has been proposed solely to ensure that all FIFA Member Associations (MAs) have the opportunity to take meaningful ownership of the commercial opportunity of football in their respective countries, and that this does not come at the cost of either the spirit or the governance of FIFA or football itself.
“Nobody is selling football. This is not something FIFA would ever entertain.
“Everyone has the right to express their opposition and to seek further clarification but no single entity can claim to represent all 211 MAs around the world. Each MA should be allowed to review the proposal and have a say in shaping their own future. These are the democratic principles of FIFA.”
When will UEFA’s resolve be tested?
The first chance for UEFA to follow through on their boycott threat will come at the Under-20 Women’s World Cup, which gets underway on September 5 in Poland.
FIFA have said MAs will receive £30m each under the proposal and have access to an initial £15m if they back the plan by a deadline of September 19.
That raises the possibility of UEFA countries pulling out of the Under-20 tournament midway through.
Infantino advisor quits
The FFE scheme could result in the downfall of Infantino, who was expected to be a shoo-in to retain his position as president when the next elections are held in March. And his position was weakened further this morning when one of his senior advisors, Carlos Cordeiro, quit.
Former banker Cordeiro said in a damning statement: “It is a bad deal for FIFA’s MAs, a bad deal for football and a bad deal for the long-term future of the game.
“FIFA already has access to extraordinary financial resources. The organisation sits on billions of dollars in reserves and no debt. The FIFA president himself has highlighted the $15bn in revenue generated between 2022 and 2026. If MAs believe additional investment is needed to develop the game, FIFA already has the financial capacity to provide that support from its existing resources. Against that backdrop, selling a permanent stake in football’s most valuable asset to raise $4.2bn makes little sense.
“Most troubling of all is the absence of answers to fundamental questions. Why this deal? Why now? What oversight exists? Who benefits? Was there a competitive process? What governance will be in place? What will investors ultimately gain, and at what cost to football?
