FIFA is allegedly considering allowing private investors to buy into a new company built around some of world soccer’s most valuable commercial assets.

Beyond that, however, many of the most important details remain unknown.

According to a report by the Financial Times (subscription may be required), FIFA is working with bank JPMorgan on plans to create a commercial entity valued at approximately $20 billion. Outside investors would reportedly be invited to acquire a significant minority stake, potentially around 20%, raising billions of dollars for soccer’s global governing body.

Who is leading the investment in FIFA’s asset sell-off?

Joshua Kushner’s investment fund Thrive Eternal is in talks to lead the investment, the FT reported. Kushner is the younger brother of Jared Kushner, who is married to President Donald Trump’s daughter Ivanka Trump. FIFA President Gianni Infantino has developed a particularly close relationship with Trump in recent years.

So is FIFA selling the World Cup?

Not exactly, or at least not in the simple sense suggested by some of the headlines surrounding the proposal.

Private investors would not directly own 20% of the World Cup tournament. Instead, they would reportedly buy a minority interest in a new corporate entity containing some of FIFA’s commercial and operational activities.

That distinction is important, but it does not answer the most significant questions.

What would investors in FIFA’s commercial entity actually own?

The first major unknown is exactly which FIFA assets would be placed inside the new company.

Would it control the commercial rights to the men’s World Cup alone? Would it also include the Women’s World Cup, the Club World Cup, FIFA’s streaming operations, sponsorship agreements, licensing, hospitality and ticketing?

Reports have described the proposed business as covering FIFA’s commercial and event operations, but no detailed list of assets has been made public.

That makes it difficult to understand what a 20% stake would actually represent.

Would the investors own something similar to ordinary shares in a company, giving them a percentage of its profits and a vote in some corporate decisions? Would FIFA retain special voting rights? Would investors receive seats on the board?

Or would the investment operate more like financing, with investors entitled to fixed or variable payments generated by FIFA’s future revenue?

How would investors get a return from FIFA?

The FT report describes a minority equity investment rather than a bond issue. That suggests investors would buy an ownership stake in the new business, not simply lend it money. However, the proposed shareholder rights, dividend arrangements, exit terms and governance structure have not been disclosed.

How would investors in FIFA make their money?

Private investment funds do not normally provide billions of dollars without expecting a substantial financial return.

That return could come from annual dividends paid out of World Cup broadcasting, sponsorship, ticketing and licensing income. It could also come from an increase in the company’s valuation, allowing investors to sell their shares later at a profit.

It is not yet clear whether FIFA would promise regular distributions, whether the investors would be able to sell their stakes to other buyers, or whether FIFA would eventually be required to buy them back.

Those details matter. Investors receiving a share of future profits would have a clear financial incentive to increase revenue and reduce costs.

That could mean more sponsors, more expensive tickets, additional commercial breaks, larger tournaments or more frequent competitions. It could also create pressure to award events and commercial contracts according to their profitability rather than sporting or public-interest considerations.

Would investors have any control over the World Cup?

FIFA reportedly intends to retain majority ownership, and subsequent reporting has described the proposed outside stakes as minority and non-controlling. FIFA would therefore continue to make soccer governance decisions, at least formally.

But “non-controlling” does not necessarily mean “without influence.”

Minority investors can have board representation, voting rights, protections against certain decisions and access to corporate information. Major investors can also exert influence informally, particularly when a company later needs more money.

No detailed explanation has yet been given of whether investors would have any say over commercial strategy, sponsorships, broadcasters, tournament scheduling or the location and frequency of FIFA competitions.

FIFA may insist that decisions such as choosing World Cup hosts and determining the format would remain entirely separate from the commercial company. Until the legal and governance documents are published, however, outsiders cannot verify where that dividing line would be drawn.

Why does FIFA need the money?

FIFA is already extraordinarily wealthy. It expects to generate at least $13 billion during the current four-year financial cycle, helped by the commercial success of the 2026 World Cup in the United States, Canada and Mexico. Revenue in the following cycle, which ends with the 2030 World Cup in Spain, Portugal and Morocco, is forecast to reach at least $14 billion.

FIFA also has other ways of raising money rather than selling a stake in its commercial activities. It could borrow against future income, issue bonds, negotiate new broadcasting and sponsorship agreements, sell specific commercial rights or simply distribute money to its member associations gradually from future revenue.

Selling equity is different because it normally gives investors a lasting claim on future profits.

FIFA’s apparent argument is that taking billions of dollars up front would allow it to invest more immediately in soccer around the world. One person familiar with the plans told the FT that the proceeds would help FIFA send more money to its 211 national associations, which currently receive approximately $2 million each year regardless of their size.

More recent reports suggest the plan could include a one-time payment of as much as $20 million to each member association, followed by increased annual distributions. The final arrangement would still require approval within FIFA.

That would give many smaller federations a powerful reason to support the proposal.

However, receiving money now means giving up at least part of the income those assets may generate in the future. The central financial question is whether FIFA would be receiving a fair price or selling a portion of its most valuable business too cheaply.

Who decided FIFA’s new company is worth $20 billion?

The reported valuation also requires scrutiny.

A $20 billion valuation is not the same thing as $20 billion sitting in a bank account. It is an estimate of what the business might be worth based on its expected future revenues and profits.

It is not clear who produced the valuation, what assumptions were used or whether rival investors would be allowed to bid.

If one investment group leads the transaction without a competitive process, FIFA would need to explain how it determined that the price was fair. That is particularly important for a nonprofit organization responsible for assets that do not belong to its executives personally.

There are also questions about JPMorgan’s role. Is the bank advising FIFA, arranging the financing, seeking investors or performing several of those functions? How would it be paid, and would its fee depend on the transaction going ahead?

Could the World Cup be expanded to make investors more money?

The investment proposal comes as Infantino continues to look for ways to increase FIFA’s revenue.

He has already relaunched and expanded the Club World Cup, creating tensions with domestic leagues and regional governing bodies. FIFA is considering whether that competition should be expanded further or staged more frequently.

Infantino has also said FIFA will discuss the possibility of expanding the men’s World Cup from 48 teams to 64.

There is no evidence that potential investors have demanded either change.

Nevertheless, selling part of FIFA’s commercial operation would introduce a new group with a direct financial interest in creating more matches, more tournaments and more revenue.

What did UEFA say?

Soccer’s governing body in Europe, UEFA, has reacted strongly to the proposal.

European soccer’s governing body said the proposal “crosses a line that football’s governing bodies should never cross.”

“UEFA takes this matter extremely seriously,” its statement continued. “So should every national football association and every stakeholder in the game: leagues, clubs, players, supporters, governments and anyone who cares about the future of this sport.

“The soul and governance of football are not assets to be traded, especially when there is zero transparency over who stands to profit financially.

“None of us owns football. It is not FIFA’s property to sell.”

UEFA’s objection appears to be based partly on the fear that FIFA is not merely raising money against commercial revenue. Instead, it may be creating a structure in which private financial interests become permanently attached to the governance and expansion of major soccer competitions.

FIFA says it would retain control. UEFA’s response is essentially that no one yet knows enough about the structure to be confident that those two things can remain separate.

Could Infantino eventually run the company?

There has also been speculation that Infantino could take a senior role in the new commercial entity after leaving the FIFA presidency.

The Associated Press reported that FIFA denied any discussions about Infantino becoming the company’s future chief executive or commissioner.

Even so, the possibility illustrates another unanswered governance question.

FIFA would need to establish strict rules preventing current officials from designing a valuable private-sector role that they could later occupy themselves. It would also need to explain how executives would be appointed, paid and removed.

What happens next to FIFA’s plan?

FIFA’s proposal has not yet been completed. It has been working on the plans for several months, but the transaction still requires final approval. Reports indicate that FIFA’s Council and member associations would have roles in authorizing the new structure.

Before any vote, FIFA would be expected to publish considerably more information than it has so far.

That should include the company’s complete list of assets, its shareholder structure, investor rights, governance rules, valuation process, dividend policy, conflict-of-interest protections and the conditions under which shares could later be sold.

It should also explain why selling equity is better than borrowing money or using FIFA’s own future revenues.

Until those questions are answered, saying that FIFA plans to “sell the World Cup” is an oversimplification.

But so is FIFA’s likely counterargument that it is merely accepting a passive minority investment.

The real issue is not just what percentage investors would own. It is what rights would come with that ownership, what financial returns they would receive and how their presence could change the decisions FIFA makes about the world’s biggest sporting event.

Get closer to the game! Whether you like your soccer of the European variety or that on this side of the pond, our AS USA app has it all. Dive into live coverage, expert insights, breaking news, exclusive videos, and more. Plus, stay updated on NFL, NBA and all other big sports stories as well as the latest in current affairs and entertainment. Download now for all-access coverage, right at your fingertips – anytime, anywhere.

And there’s more: check out our TikTok and Instagram reels for bite-sized visual takes on all the biggest soccer news and insights.