FIFA’s plan to inject private money into the World Cup hit with abrupt UEFA boycott
By Patrick Sung Cuadrado, CNN
(CNN) — The 55 members making up European soccer governing body UEFA unanimously voted Thursday in support of a boycott of future men’s and women’s World Cups in reaction to global soccer governing body FIFA’s plan to inject private money into its competitions.
The UEFA vote was an authoritative statement, pitting the richest and most important national associations against FIFA’s president, Gianni Infantino.
FIFA and Infantino announced plans Tuesday to set up a separate subsidiary – involving private equity investment – that would control the commercial and operational rights of one of the globe’s biggest sporting events.
The proposal has come under intense scrutiny and criticism from many around the world, with UEFA saying the “soul and governance” of the game are under threat. FIFA, though, said that the money generated from what it calls the FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE) will be reinvested back into the sport.
“Europe’s position is clear. We will never lend this model our legitimacy. No one has the moral authority to sell what they merely hold in trust for the next generation,” UEFA said in a Thursday statement.
“As a result of today’s discussion, no UEFA national teams will participate in any FIFA competition for so long as these proposals remain alive, unless this proposal has been abandoned in its entirety and binding assurances have been given that FIFA will never again open its governance or competitions to private ownership.
“Nobody should be in any doubt: UEFA and its national associations will oppose these plans with absolute determination.”
CNN Sports has reached out to FIFA for comment on UEFA’s planned boycott.
At Thursday’s emergency meeting held virtually, UEFA’s members approved the boycott, which would mean teams like current World Cup champion Spain as well as semifinalists France and England would not play in the 2030 World Cup.
The boycott would also affect next year’s World Cup in Brazil on the women’s side, where three of the four semifinalists were also European, including defending champion Spain, and would miss the tournament.
“There are moments when institutions are judged not by what they are prepared to accept, but by what they refuse to compromise. This is one of those moments,” UEFA said in its statement.
“Some things are simply too important to sell. The FIFA World Cup belongs to football. It always will. And so long as Europe has a voice, it will never be for sale.”
Support is bubbling amid widening anger
Aside from the lack of transparency around the process, much of the criticism of FIFA’s FFE proposal centered around the involvement of private investors purchasing roughly 20% of the FFE subsidiary, in particular the main proposed investor group, Thrive Eternal, headed up by Joshua Kushner – brother of Jared Kushner, the son-in-law of US President Donald Trump.
A fear is that investors, seeking a return on their investments, would push to influence matters beyond their remit to maximize their profits.
For example, the newly expanded men’s World Cup generated significantly more revenue through additional matches, while hydration breaks gave broadcasters opportunities to feature additional advertisements if they so chose. Under this proposal, there would be an even greater incentive to expand the tournament and the Club World Cup to include more teams, providing more games and generating more revenue. This isn’t speculation but rather something already postulated by Infantino during the 2026 edition. Would investors also pressure FIFA to hold the World Cup more frequently – every two years instead of every four?
That would then affect player welfare and competitions outside of FIFA’s remit, such as domestic leagues and continental club competitions like the Champions League. Players are already nearing their physical limits with additional games, so would this move lead to further injuries and have a negative impact across the sport?
Following UEFA’s lead, the North and Central America and Caribbean governing body, CONCACAF, also rejected the scheme, noting in a Thursday statement “deep concerns about the lack of due process surrounding the proposal.” However, CONCACAF did not say the 41 member nations are boycotting future FIFA competitions.
A spokesperson for the Oceania Football Confederation said the FIFA proposal would be addressed by the entity’s executive committee “in August.”
It remains to be seen what other continental confederations, such as South America’s CONMEBOL and the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) will do following UEFA’s boycott, given the widespread uproar over FIFA’s FFE proposal.
Ahead of the UEFA meeting, AFC president Sheikh Salman bin Ebrahim Al-Khalifa branded FIFA’s lack of consultation with its members “totally unacceptable” in a letter sent to his 47 member associations, seen by Reuters.
Sheikh Salman added: “The AFC notes with great concern and disappointment that it was not consulted by FIFA at any level prior to the public announcement of this proposal.
“Furthermore, the AFC is deeply concerned that FIFA’s unilateral actions appear to undermine the very foundations of continental football, which are based on solidarity, cooperation and transparency.”
England’s Football Association (FA) said it stands “shoulder to shoulder” with European teams after the vote. “The FIFA World Cup belongs to football and always will,” a spokesperson said.
Meanwhile, European Commissioner of Sport Glenn Micallef said he fully supports UEFA’s position, posting on X: “Proud to see Europe’s football associations leading on governance, standing firm on their principles and defending the integrity of the game.”
Britain’s Sport Minister Lisa Nandy said the boycott was a “principled decision” that the UK supports. “Football belongs to the fans, not billionaire investors. Enough is enough. It’s time to take a stand to protect our game,” Nandy said.
UEFA’s oversized impact
Even though UEFA’s member associations only make up just over 26% of FIFA’s worldwide membership, those 55 largely European associations carry massive weight in soccer, both on the national team and club level.
Many of the richest and most powerful national soccer associations are in Europe and carry a lot of influence due to their domestic leagues and the strength of their club sides. Countries like England (which has the richest domestic competition in the world, the Premier League), Spain and Germany feature powerhouse teams like Real Madrid, Barcelona, Manchester City, Arsenal, Chelsea and Bayern Munich – moneymaking machines that drive commercial interests worldwide, both on and off the pitch.
On a sporting level, European national teams take up six spots in FIFA’s top 10 of its men’s global rankings. At the 2026 World Cup, UEFA members made up six of the eight squads in the quarterfinals, three of the four semifinalists and Spain ultimately won the tournament.
On the women’s side, it’s much the same. UEFA associations, again, make up six of the top 10 in the world rankings. At the 2023 World Cup, Europe had five out of the eight quarterfinalists, three of the four semifinalists and both finalists, with Spain also winning.
With the next major FIFA international event, the Under-20 Women’s World Cup, set to kick off on September 5 in Poland, it won’t be long to see if six – Poland, France, Italy, England, Portugal and Spain – of the 24 teams set to compete do keep their word and stay off the pitch in Katowice.
This story has been updated with additional reporting.
The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.
