American, Asian confederations blindsided by FIFA’s World Cup plan

FIFA’s bombshell proposal to sell ⁠stakes in a $20bn commercial subsidiary has drawn strong criticism from football’s regional confederations, which said they were blindsided by the world governing body’s plan to bring private investors into the game.

The Confederations of North, Central America and the Caribbean (CONCACAF) and Asia (AFC) delivered stinging rebukes on Wednesday, saying they ⁠learned of FIFA’s equity sale proposal through media reports rather than official channels.

Recommended Stories

• list 1 of 4Indian Premier League’s business value skyrockets to $20bn
• list 2 of 4Five wickets, no runs: West Indies cricketer makes bowling history
• list 3 of 4World Cup: For India football, qualification is still just a distant dream
• list 4 of 4France legend Zinedine Zidane confirmed as new national team manager

FIFA said on Tuesday that it plans to create a $20bn subsidiary to run the World Cup and its other events, offering stakes of up to 20% in it to external investors.

Under the plan, FIFA would establish its Forward Enterprise to oversee commercial and event operations. FIFA, which this ⁠year held a 48-team World Cup across the US, Canada and Mexico that was the biggest in the tournament’s history, would retain control of the enterprise but offer minority stakes to private investors to raise up to $4.2bn.

CONCACAF cite ‘lack of due process’ by FIFA

“CONCACAF was only made aware of this matter through media reports and, subsequently, via a media release. We are deeply concerned by the lack of due process,” it said in a statement.

“We share the disappointment of many within our region and the game that this level of detail has been designed and shared publicly before any discussion ‌with the relevant governance bodies and stakeholders has taken place.

“As leaders within football, we are the custodians of the game. Collectively, FIFA, the confederations and every member association have a responsibility to always act in the best interests of the sport.

“Every decision we make must be guided by good governance, robust processes and long-term stewardship.”

The AFC said it recognised the importance of “exploring innovative approaches” but was disappointed that such a significant proposal was announced before the confederation had the opportunity to examine the plan.

“Such initiatives should be founded upon the principles of good governance, transparency and meaningful consultation,” it said.

“Decisions that may reshape the commercial and financial future of the game require comprehensive prior engagement with confederations, member associations and other relevant stakeholders before any proposal is made to the appropriate decision-making body(ies),” the AFC added.

“The AFC firmly believes that all stakeholders should be provided with sufficient ⁠information and adequate time to assess the proposal in full, including its governance, legal, commercial and strategic implications.”

While the AFC has 47 ⁠member associations, CONCACAF has 41.

Together with UEFA’s 55 members, that brings the total to 143 of 211 member associations whose confederations either criticised the proposal or had concerns about it.

“Our job is to make sure the rest of football grows with it: FIFA exists to support sustainable, inclusive development in every corner of the world,” FIFA President Gianni Infantino said.

France and UK react to FIFA move

The backlash also extended to individual country ruling bodies, with French Football Federation chief Philippe Diallo saying his organisation ⁠had not been informed either.

“Given its direction – specifically, as I understand, bringing investment funds into a commercial entity alongside FIFA – it obviously raises many questions,” he said on the French Inter radio station.

“Particularly since we, the member federations, were not involved and we lack the specific information ⁠needed to weigh in on matters that are clearly fundamental to the future of football.”

England’s Football Association (FA) said ⁠it was “completely unaware” of the proposal and had no substantive details.

“Based on the limited information, we are deeply concerned about the lack of process and governance to get to this point, and the apparent substance and principles involved,” the FA said in a statement.

“When the proposal is shared in the full and transparent way now promised by FIFA, we will make our views clear, and comment further.”

UEFA meeting mooted

FIFA’s move provoked a furious response from UEFA, which accused world football’s governing body of putting the game’s “soul” up for sale.

UEFA is looking to hold an emergency meeting with its 55 member associations this week to discuss FIFA’s proposal, according to widespread reports, which added that the meeting would be virtual and would seek to work out a plan of action for European football’s governing body.

A boycott of FIFA competitions is understood to be on the agenda for possible responses.

European Union Sport Commissioner Glenn Micallef said he was concerned FIFA’s regulatory powers may become aligned with the financial interests of private entities.

“When the value of investments depends on decisions made by FIFA, that raises profound questions about governance, independence and conflicts of interest,” he wrote on X.