Infantino under fire over reported plan to sell World Cup commercial rights

Fifa president Gianni Infantino is facing mounting criticism after reports emerged that football’s world governing body is actively exploring a sale of the Fifa World Cup’s commercial rights to private investors.

The potential deal – described by critics as a fundamental shift in how the sport’s showpiece tournament is run – has provoked alarm across the game, with senior figures in Europe and Asia said to view it as a perilous cash grab that could reshape international football’s financial landscape.

At the heart of the controversy are reports that investment vehicles linked to Jared Kushner, the son-in-law of former United States president Donald Trump, are among those examining involvement in a prospective commercial rights package around the World Cup, including the 2026 edition.

The suggestion that politically connected private funds could gain long-term control over the tournament’s commercial machinery has triggered concerns over conflicts of interest, transparency and the neutrality of Fifa’s decision-making.

Political links raise governance concerns

Football’s global showpiece has long been a magnet for corporate money, but critics argue that moving core commercial rights into the hands of private equity-style structures would mark an unprecedented step – turning what is viewed by fans as a shared cultural asset into a financial product to be leveraged and traded.

The World Cup is widely regarded within the sport as Fifa’s “crown jewel”, underwriting much of the organisation’s income and development programmes. Opponents of any sell-off fear the tournament could be treated more like a distressed commercial property than a global sporting event if control shifts away from member associations.

The reported involvement of Kushner-linked entities has sharpened scrutiny of Infantino’s relationships with political leaders, particularly in the United States.

Infantino’s frequent public engagements with Trump, including the presentation of a so‐called “Fifa Peace Prize” to the then US president in the build-up to the 2026 World Cup, are now being revisited in the context of the commercial rights discussions.

What some previously viewed as symbolic or ceremonial diplomacy is being recast by critics as part of a broader pattern of cultivating access to powerful political figures while Fifa considers deals with investors tied to those same circles.

On-field decisions in the spotlight

The debate over commercial control has also prompted renewed scepticism about Fifa’s sporting and disciplinary decisions.

The unprecedented overturning of Folarin Balogun’s red card – a ruling that many within the game saw as highly unusual – is being cited by some observers as an example of how confidence in Fifa’s neutrality can erode when governance is perceived to be compromised.

There is no evidence linking that specific incident to any commercial talks. However, critics argue that once the governing body is seen to be closely entwined with powerful financial and political interests, fans inevitably begin to question whether decisions, on and off the pitch, are being made in the best interests of the sport.

The underlying concern is that, if private investors with political ties were to secure a stake in World Cup revenues and rights, the balance of power around key decisions could tilt away from national associations and towards those whose primary focus is commercial return.

Global backlash and calls for unity

Opposition to the reported sell-off has been particularly strong in Europe and Asia, where senior administrators are said to view the proposal as a direct threat to the existing economic framework that sustains national team football and continental competitions.

Uefa officials have been especially forthright, regarding any long-term transfer of World Cup commercial rights as a reckless move that could undermine solidarity payments and destabilise the broader football economy.

Attention is now turning to Africa, where the stance of the Confederation of African Football (CAF) is seen as pivotal. Less than a week ago, CAF president Patrice Motsepe publicly praised and endorsed Infantino’s leadership, but critics of the proposed deal argue that this latest development demands a clear and robust response from African associations.

They contend that what is at stake is not simply another commercial contract, but the principle of who ultimately “owns” the World Cup – the governing hierarchy, private funds, or the billions of supporters who invest emotional and financial energy in the tournament every four years.

Those opposed to any sale of core World Cup rights say that ceding long-term control to politically connected intermediaries would represent more than an administrative misjudgement. In their view, it would amount to a betrayal of football’s global community and a rupture in trust between Fifa and its member associations.

With discussions over the future of World Cup commercial rights ongoing, critics are urging national federations to act collectively to block any move that would hand decisive commercial power over the tournament to external investors – warning that, if unchecked, such a decision could alter the character of the World Cup, and of the sport itself, for generations to come.