FIFA is preparing one of the biggest changes to the commercial structure of global football, proposing a new company valued at $20 billion that would manage commercial rights and event operations across the World Cup and its wider tournament portfolio.

The global football body plans to establish FIFA Forward Enterprise, or FFE, bringing broadcasting, sponsorship, ticketing, licensing and tournament operations under a dedicated commercial subsidiary. FIFA could raise as much as $4.2 billion by allowing outside investors to acquire minority, non-controlling stakes of up to 20 percent in the business.

The proposal has triggered a fierce debate over how far private capital should be allowed into the institutions governing global football, with UEFA warning that FIFA risks putting part of the game’s commercial future into the hands of external investors.

FIFA Wants to Build a $20 Billion Commercial Business

Under the proposed structure, FIFA Forward Enterprise would take responsibility for commercial and event operations connected to FIFA competitions.

That would effectively place many of FIFA’s most valuable revenue-generating activities inside a separately valued business, including media rights, sponsorship, ticketing, licensing and tournament operations.

FIFA would remain the controlling shareholder, while private investors would be limited to minority positions. The governing body says investors would not control sporting decisions or football regulation.

FIFA would retain exclusive authority over competitions, the international match calendar, governance, regulations and other sporting matters.

The structure would allow FIFA to raise billions of dollars without selling control of the organisation itself.

Private Investors Could Put Up $4.2 Billion

FIFA could sell up to 20 percent of the proposed subsidiary, potentially raising about $4.2 billion from outside investors.

Joshua Kushner’s Thrive Eternal is expected to lead the investor group. Kushner is the founder of venture capital firm Thrive Capital and the brother of Jared Kushner, the son-in-law of U.S. President Donald Trump.

Thrive Eternal was created as a permanent-capital investment vehicle focused on long-term holdings in major companies, franchises and cultural institutions.

The firm has already expanded into sports investment, including a minority stake in Major League Baseball’s San Francisco Giants.

FIFA is also working with JPMorgan on the proposed transaction, while former Liberty Media chief executive Greg Maffei has been involved as a commercial adviser.

The participation of institutional investors could give FIFA access to substantial long-term capital while allowing the governing body to retain majority ownership.

Why FIFA Says the Deal Matters

FIFA argues that the proposed investment structure would allow it to distribute significantly more money across global football.

The organisation says proceeds from the capital raise could support infrastructure, coaching, national teams, competitions, grassroots football and the women’s game.

Under a proposed funding programme, FIFA member associations could gain access to as much as $20 million in one-off capital.

FIFA also wants development funding available to member associations to increase further in future funding cycles.

President Gianni Infantino has presented the plan as a way to spread football’s commercial success beyond the biggest leagues and richest national associations.

FIFA argues that while elite football has created enormous commercial value, many federations still lack adequate infrastructure and resources to develop the game.

The proposed subsidiary would therefore allow FIFA to monetise its commercial assets more aggressively while directing part of the proceeds towards football development.

The World Cup Is Driving FIFA’s Commercial Power

The plan comes after the expanded 2026 World Cup hosted across the United States, Canada and Mexico.

The tournament featured 48 teams, making it the largest World Cup in history and further increasing FIFA’s commercial opportunities across broadcasting, sponsorship, hospitality and ticketing.

The World Cup remains FIFA’s most valuable asset and generates a major share of the organisation’s revenue.

That commercial strength explains why a subsidiary built around FIFA’s major competitions could command a valuation of about $20 billion.

The proposal would also make the value of FIFA’s commercial operations more visible to investors.

Instead of keeping those assets entirely within a non-profit governing structure, FIFA would effectively create a business that investors could value based on future revenue and growth.

UEFA Says FIFA Is Crossing a Line

UEFA has reacted strongly against the proposal, describing it as a fundamental challenge to how football should be governed.

European football’s governing body argued that FIFA should not treat the game’s governance and institutional assets as something that can be sold to investors.

UEFA said football belongs to its wider community of national associations, clubs, players and supporters, rather than to one governing organisation.

Its criticism reflects concerns that investors with financial interests in FIFA’s commercial arm could eventually gain influence over decisions affecting competitions and the wider football ecosystem.

FIFA rejects that argument.

The organisation says outside investors would hold only minority stakes and would have no operational role in running football.

FIFA would also remain responsible for all sporting and regulatory decisions.

The FIFA-UEFA divide is getting wider.

The dispute comes amid increasingly strained relations between FIFA and UEFA.

The two organisations have clashed over competition scheduling, governance, commercial expansion and the growing pressure placed on clubs and players by an increasingly crowded football calendar.

UEFA has frequently positioned itself as a defender of Europe’s traditional football structure, while FIFA under Infantino has aggressively expanded its global competitions and commercial ambitions.

Those differences have become particularly visible as FIFA develops new competitions, expands existing tournaments and seeks additional revenue from international football.

The proposed FIFA Forward Enterprise could deepen those tensions because it introduces private investors directly into FIFA’s commercial ecosystem.

Critics Question Whether Football Should Attract Private Capital

The debate is not only about FIFA and UEFA.

Critics argue that allowing outside investors to buy into FIFA’s commercial operations could create pressure to prioritise revenue growth over sporting considerations.

Private investors would expect returns on their capital, raising questions about whether FIFA could eventually face greater pressure to expand competitions, increase commercial inventory or pursue new revenue streams.

FIFA says the concerns are misplaced because investors would not control sporting decisions.

The organisation also argues that the economic benefits would ultimately support football development around the world.

That distinction will be central to the debate: whether investors are simply funding FIFA’s commercial operations or gaining an economic stake in the future direction of global football.

FIFA’s 211 Members Will Have the Final Say

The proposal is not yet final.

FIFA plans to present the structure to its 211 member associations and the FIFA Council, which would ultimately determine whether the project moves forward.

That makes the plan an important test of Infantino’s influence across global football.

For smaller football associations, the prospect of receiving substantially more development funding could make the proposal attractive.

For critics, however, the financial benefits do not remove concerns about bringing private capital closer to one of world sport’s most powerful institutions.

The debate therefore goes beyond the proposed $4.2 billion capital raise.

It raises a larger question about the future of global football: whether FIFA can unlock the commercial value of the World Cup through private investment without changing the relationship between money, governance and control of the sport.