FIFA has vigorously defended its controversial FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE) project, pushing back against accusations that the governing body is attempting to privatise the World Cup.
The proposal would see FIFA’s commercial and operational event delivery activities moved into a new subsidiary organisation. This initiative recently triggered intense opposition from major confederations, notably UEFA and CONCACAF, with fears of private investors gaining permanent financial and sporting influence over the sport’s biggest tournaments. They argued that even a minority private equity stake in FFE would permanently tether FIFA's sporting decisions to commercial expectations — calendars, formats, and tournament expansion to the relentless demands of shareholders seeking financial returns.
FIFA sought to categorically dismantle this narrative. The governing body insisted that the new subsidiary would be an organisation "that FIFA would own and control permanently."
“FFE has been proposed solely to ensure that all FIFA Member Associations (MAs) have the opportunity to take meaningful ownership of the commercial opportunity of football in their respective countries, and that this does not come at the cost of either the spirit or the governance of FIFA or football itself.”
Another major talking point had been the enormous financial incentives attached to the proposal, with the benefits attractive enough prima facie to gain the support of smaller member associations. This could make it easier in the long-term for FIFA to pass structural changes without adequate scrutiny.
But FIFA refuted that concern too: "Under the proposal, each MA would receive USD 20 million of FIFA Forward Development funding over the next four years (2027-2030), irrespective of its individual support.
{{/usCountry}}But FIFA refuted that concern too: "Under the proposal, each MA would receive USD 20 million of FIFA Forward Development funding over the next four years (2027-2030), irrespective of its individual support.
{{/usCountry}}"The commercial value created would be shared among all 211 MAs, enabling each MA to make meaningful investments in football in their respective countries.”
FIFA explained that this increased funding would stem from the additional revenues generated by FFE through more effective management of commercial operations.
No transparent consultation with members, press scapegoated
Another major point of consternation was the rushed and secretive consultation process itself. The proposal was not formally disclosed to continental governing bodies, and only became public through media reporting. Confederations and national associations were then given only 53 days to consider the plan, with approval sought by September 19.
Addressing the accusations of a secretive rollout and an artificially short deadline, FIFA pointed the finger directly at the press. "Our planned consultation process was disrupted by incorrect media reports. We will proceed with this consultation process to ensure that each MA has the ability to express its vote based on facts.
“Everyone has the right to express their opposition and to seek further clarification but no single entity can claim to represent all 211 MAs around the world. Each MA should be allowed to review the proposal and have a say in shaping their own future. These are the democratic principles of FIFA.”