UEFA and Concacaf Reject $20B Stake Sale, Vow FIFA World Cup Boycott

UEFA’s 55 members and Concacaf’s 41 associations have rejected Gianni Infantino’s $20 billion private equity plan, triggering a potential FIFA World Cup boycott.

European soccer’s governing body, UEFA, and its 55 member associations resolved on Thursday to "unequivocally reject" FIFA President Gianni Infantino’s proposal to sell stakes in the World Cup to a private equity group. This decision means major nations including England, France, Germany, and reigning world champions Spain will not participate in men’s or women’s World Cups as long as the plan remains active. The rejection was followed by a similar move from Concacaf, the 41-member body representing North, Central America, and the Caribbean, which includes 2026 World Cup hosts the United States, Mexico, and Canada.

Infantino’s financial plan involves the sale of a stake in FIFA Forward Enterprises (FFE) to raise $20 billion. In exchange, the private equity group would gain influence over future World Cup broadcasting and commercial deals. The proposal includes a 12-year ownership deal and would trigger over $80 million in payouts to each of FIFA's 211 member associations between now and 2037. The investment is being bankrolled by Joshua Kushner, the brother of Jared Kushner, who is the son-in-law of U.S. President Donald Trump.

UEFA Leads Opposition to Private Equity Deal

During a virtual emergency meeting on Thursday, sources indicated that over 50 of UEFA’s 55 associations took the floor to express unanimous anger regarding the sell-off. UEFA stated that its national associations will not participate in any FIFA competitions until the plan is abandoned, asserting that the World Cup "belongs to football" and is not for sale. The governing body also criticized a lack of "meaningful consultation," labeling the process an "abdication of FIFA's duty as the custodian of world football."

The first practical test of this boycott could occur in September when Poland hosts the Women’s U20 World Cup. Concerns have been raised that women’s soccer could become a "pawn in politics" ahead of the 2027 Women’s World Cup in Brazil. Infantino, who previously served as UEFA’s CEO-like general secretary before his 2016 election to FIFA, had set a Sept. 19 deadline for associations to accept the plan via a majority vote.

Concacaf and AFC Raise Governance Concerns

Concacaf’s 41 members expressed deep concerns regarding the "artificially short deadline" and a perceived lack of due process. The U.S. Soccer Federation confirmed via social media that it stands with Concacaf in this rejection. The confederation has instructed its FIFA Council members to investigate how existing FIFA reserves could be utilized for development instead of the proposed private equity funding. They also demanded that the FIFA President adhere to proper governance processes in accordance with FIFA Statutes.

Asian Football Confederation (AFC) President Sheikh Salman bin Ibrahim Al Khalifa also signaled a shift in support. In a letter to his 46 member associations, Sheikh Salman warned that FIFA’s unilateral actions undermine continental football foundations. He noted that such an initiative cannot succeed without the support of all confederations, which is currently absent. This marks a significant rift, as Sheikh Salman has been a key ally to Infantino since the 2016 election.

Future of the FIFA Presidency

These developments threaten Infantino’s 11-year presidency as he faces rising frustration from three of the six continental bodies. FIFA has established a Nov. 18 deadline for potential candidates to declare for the next presidential election. That vote, involving all 211 members, is scheduled to take place in March in Rabat, Morocco.

Infantino’s recent efforts have included creating a FIFA peace prize and allowing President Trump to intervene in the process that led forward Folarin Balogun to play for the United States. However, the current $20 billion gambit has unified major soccer stakeholders in opposition, citing a failure of leadership and a lack of review by relevant governance bodies.