FIFA President Gianni Infantino has abandoned his controversial plan to sell minority stakes in a new commercial company controlling World Cup rights, after a fierce global backlash.

In a late statement, Infantino admitted the proposal had “created divisions of a nature that… are no longer in the interest of the objective” and confirmed it “will not proceed.”

The climbdown has not ended the crisis. UEFA, European football’s governing body, issued a blistering response saying the current FIFA leadership has lost its confidence and that of “many other members of the football family.” UEFA demanded a thorough and fundamental review of FIFA governance, declaring “no option should be off the table” and criticising “secret schemes” and “shabby backroom deals.”

Many within European football believe Infantino’s position is now untenable and want him to step aside.

What the plan was

Infantino proposed creating a $20 billion subsidiary called FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE). FIFA would retain majority control while selling up to around 20% to private investors (led by Joshua Kushner’s Thrive Eternal) to raise up to $4.2 billion. The money was to be distributed to FIFA’s 211 member associations as increased development funding, including a one-off $20 million payment each.

Critics said it effectively put a stake in the World Cup up for sale and was developed with almost no consultation.

How each continental confederation responded

UEFA (Europe – 55 members)
The strongest opposition. UEFA called the plan an attempt to sell “the soul of football” and threatened a complete boycott of all FIFA competitions (including future World Cups) unless it was withdrawn. After the scrap, UEFA said FIFA’s leadership had lost its confidence and demanded a full governance review. Faith in Infantino personally was openly questioned during internal meetings.

CONCACAF (North, Central America & Caribbean – 41 members)
Formally rejected the proposal after an emergency meeting of all 41 associations. They cited lack of due process, an artificially short deadline, absence of proper governance approval, and questioned why private money was needed after the most profitable World Cup in history. After the plan was dropped, CONCACAF went further, calling for a “comprehensive reckoning with this presidency.”

AFC (Asia – 47 members)
Expressed serious concerns about the lack of consultation and stood in solidarity with UEFA and CONCACAF. AFC president Sheikh Salman described the process as “totally unacceptable.” Asia welcomed the decision to scrap the plan and called for more transparent decision-making in future.

CAF (Africa – 54 members)
Took a more measured approach. CAF said its Executive Committee would meet to assess and evaluate the proposal as part of the consultation process. It urged its members to review the plan carefully but did not issue an outright rejection while the proposal was live.

CONMEBOL (South America – 10 members)
Adopted a cautious stance. CONMEBOL requested additional information from FIFA on the project’s scope, structure, governance and potential effects. It stressed that commercial decisions must serve football’s values and called for unity, without fully endorsing or rejecting the plan at the time.

OFC (Oceania – 11 full members)
Remained the most neutral. OFC noted that FIFA had started a consultation process and said the proposal would be considered by its Executive Committee at its August meeting. It invited its member associations to review the plan and participate in discussions, while committing to constructive engagement for the development of football in Oceania and globally. (New Zealand Football, one of its members, publicly rejected the plan.)

---

The episode has left Infantino’s authority severely damaged just months before he was due to seek re-election. While the private investment plan is now dead, the deeper questions about transparency, power and trust in FIFA’s leadership remain very much alive.