The idea of converting the quadrennial World Cup into a massive cash‑generating venture has ignited a fierce response from soccer’s governing bodies. FIFA President Gianni Infantino floated a scheme to sell commercial stakes in the tournament, aiming to raise roughly $20 billion from deep‑pocketed investors.
The proposal promised a share of the revenue to a select group of backers, with Joshua Kushner, brother of Jared Kushner, reportedly earmarked as a principal financier. Infantino’s growing closeness to former U.S. President Donald Trump added a political dimension to the discussion, raising questions about the motivations behind the plan.
Opposition mounts
UEFA, representing 55 European nations, issued a stark warning: any continuation of the scheme would trigger a boycott of all FIFA competitions. Across the Atlantic, Concacaf and its 41 member associations echoed the sentiment, citing a lack of transparency and inadequate governance as deal‑breakers.
U.S. Soccer quickly aligned itself with Concacaf, issuing a statement of solidarity that underscored the host nations’ collective rejection of the proposal. The United States, Canada and Mexico — all slated to co‑host the tournament — publicly dismissed the idea, emphasizing that the World Cup should remain insulated from commercial exploitation.
The backlash is not limited to regional bodies. A total of 96 members spanning UEFA and Concacaf have signaled their opposition, reflecting a broad consensus that the plan lacks due process and threatens the integrity of international competition. Critics argue that the scheme could set a precedent for future tournaments to be auctioned off to the highest bidder.
While the proposal remains on hold, the episode has highlighted deeper tensions within global soccer governance. The episode also underscores the intertwining of sport, politics and finance, as figures like Gianni Infantino, Donald Trump and the Kushner family navigate the complex landscape of international football.