AFC opposes FIFA plan to sell stakes in the World Cup and demands urgent governance review
Asian Football Confederation opposes FIFA’s proposal to sell stakes in the World Cup, joining UEFA and Concacaf and calling for an urgent governance review.
The Asian Football Confederation has formally joined UEFA and Concacaf in opposing FIFA’s proposal to sell stakes in the World Cup, saying the plan lacks the broad consensus needed and demanding an urgent review of FIFA’s governance and decision-making. The AFC warned that the proposed US$20 billion commercial vehicle, backed by investor Joshua Kushner, raises serious concerns about private investment in flagship competitions and risks deepening divisions across global football.
AFC says proposed FFE cannot achieve consensus
The AFC’s statement, issued on Friday, represents the position of 47 member associations that the confederation represents across Asia. It said it had “serious concerns” about FIFA’s plan to introduce private investment into its major tournaments and questioned whether the proposed structure could secure the unity required to proceed.
Citing the clear stances taken by UEFA and Concacaf, the AFC concluded that the FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE) model “cannot realistically achieve the necessary broad consensus and unity required to move forward.” The confederation urged FIFA to reconsider the plan and to subject its governance arrangements to an urgent review.
Infantino’s $20bn commercial vehicle and Kushner’s backing outlined
FIFA president Gianni Infantino has promoted a commercial subsidiary intended to harness and expand revenue from FIFA events, with an estimated valuation of roughly US$20 billion. The investment vehicle would allow private capital to acquire stakes in the commercial rights and revenues tied to tournaments, a move FIFA says could unlock new financing for the sport.
The plan has drawn attention partly because it is reportedly backed by New York-based investor Joshua Kushner, a detail that has amplified scrutiny and debate within member federations. AFC officials highlighted concerns about the model’s impact on the sport’s governance and on the influence of private investors over competitions that have traditionally been controlled collectively.
UEFA and Concacaf positions deepen the rift
The AFC’s intervention follows a series of high-profile rejections of the proposal from two of FIFA’s most influential member bodies. On Thursday, UEFA voted unanimously to boycott all FIFA tournaments should the initiative proceed in its current form, while Concacaf formally rejected the proposal and expressed concerns about the lack of consultation and the potential consequences for regional competitions.
Those public rejections have left FIFA facing an unprecedented level of pushback from within the global football family. The AFC highlighted those positions in its statement, noting that the combination of opposition from Europe, North America and now Asia creates a fragmented landscape around any move to privatize commercial rights.
AFC urges urgent review of governance and decision-making
Beyond opposing the commercial proposal, the AFC used its statement to call for an urgent review of FIFA’s governance and decision-making framework. The confederation framed its demand as necessary to restore trust and to ensure that major structural changes are subject to proper consultation and transparent processes.
The call for governance reform signals broader unease about how strategic decisions are developed and communicated at FIFA. AFC officials emphasized that major proposals affecting the global game must be advanced only with clear consensus from confederations and member associations, and with safeguards to protect the collective interests of the sport.
Commercial implications for broadcasters, sponsors and competitions
The proposal to sell stakes in World Cup revenues raises immediate commercial questions for broadcasters, sponsors and partners that have long structured multi-year deals around FIFA’s current model. Industry stakeholders could face complex negotiations if rights and revenue streams are transferred, shared or restructured under a private-investor-led vehicle.
There are also competitive considerations for regional tournaments, club calendars and the international match calendar if centralized commercialization results in altered priorities for event scheduling. National federations warned that any shift in control over commercial rights could prioritize investor returns over sporting considerations and the development needs of member associations.
Potential paths forward and risks for FIFA unity
With AFC, UEFA and Concacaf now publicly dissenting, FIFA faces limited options: revise the proposal, broaden consultation and seek explicit approval from member associations, or risk a prolonged stand-off that could include boycotts or legal challenges. The AFC’s demand for a governance review may increase pressure on FIFA to pause the initiative and re-engage stakeholders.
Observers say the dispute could prompt a formal debate at a future FIFA Congress or force a phased approach that preserves collective control while exploring new revenue models. However, the more federations that register objections, the harder it will be for FIFA to implement a plan that requires unified global support.
FIFA has argued that attracting private capital can accelerate investment in football infrastructure and development projects, but confederations counter that the costs of diminished sovereignty over competitions and revenue streams are likely to outweigh short-term financial gains. The current standoff underscores a deeper question about how global football balances commercial ambition with collective governance.
The AFC’s intervention adds significant weight to the opposition and makes a rapid resolution less likely without substantive changes to the proposal and to FIFA’s approach to consultation. Member associations will now watch for whether FIFA accepts the call for an urgent governance review and whether it rethinks the structure and terms of any commercial vehicle.
The coming weeks are likely to be decisive for the FFE proposal and for perceptions of FIFA’s leadership, as the organization considers whether to modify the plan, engage in more extensive dialogue with confederations, or proceed despite resistance. The outcome will shape not only the commercial future of the World Cup but also the institutional arrangements that govern global football.
