SportsxOP: FIFA’s private investment plan invites greater corruption

By Staff Writers Hamnah Akhtar, Michael Qin, & Matthew Zhang

Soccer fans globally hate bad refereeing, but FIFA may have finally found the one thing they hate more: selling off part of the World Cup. In July, International Federation of Association Football (FIFA) President Gianni Infantino proposed that private investors buy a part of the World Cup’s future profits. Within days, the idea blew up into one of the biggest controversies soccer has seen in years, causing FIFA to eventually discard the plan. The Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) threatened boycotts, and fans accused FIFA of selling out the sport. But the controversy goes beyond the proposal itself: by privatizing a portion of FIFA’s commercial assets, the plan would have shifted the power to hold FIFA accountable away from the fans, players, national associations, and other stakeholders that make up the sport.

Scandals and allegations of corruption have haunted FIFA’s leadership and public credibility for decades. During this year’s World Cup in July, FIFA suspended US striker Folarin Balogun’s one-match ban after President Donald Trump contacted Gianni Infantino. The decision completely bypassed the standard protocol, which requires a formal appeal, raising concerns about FIFA’s disciplinary and moral foundations. Yet worries over FIFA’s leadership extend far beyond Infantino’s tenure. Between 1974 and 1998, former FIFA President João Havelange rapidly expanded the organization’s sponsorships and television rights, increasing its annual revenue from $20 million to more than $250 million and transforming it into a global business empire. However, investigations revealed years later that FIFA’s former marketing partner International Sports and Leisure had paid bribes to Havelange, former executive Ricardo Teixeira, and former South American Football Confederation president Nicolás Leoz to secure lucrative contracts.

The problems did not end there. In 2004, FIFA’s executive committee selected South Africa over Morocco and Egypt to host the World Cup. According to The Associated Press, in 2008, a FIFA account in Switzerland transferred three payments totaling $10 million to former FIFA Vice President Jack Warner. The US Department of Justice found that South Africa’s World Cup organizing committee had provided the funds for these payments. Given FIFA’s history of scandals and poor transparency, the FFE proposal — which allocates 20% of its assets to private investors — would have made it even harder for fans and players to hold FIFA accountable.

FIFA responded to backlash from fans and players, according to ESPN, by arguing that the proposal could fund soccer development in smaller countries. By selling a 20% stake in FFE, estimated at $4.2 billion, FIFA could have guaranteed fixed capital to smaller national federations and reduced the need for approval from FIFA’s central committees. However, the proposal transfers executive power toward private shareholders who have no guaranteed obligation to prioritize funding smaller federations over their own financial interests. As privatization removes the mechanisms that allow for players, fans, and national associations, like UEFA, to have oversight over FIFA funds, FIFA could claim that such a business move benefits global development without actually disclosing those claims. 

A June 2026 research paper from North Carolina State University further demonstrates why clear disclosures are necessary: though figures supposedly estimate up to $620 million in generated gross domestic product for US host cities during the 2026 FIFA World Cup, economists have argued that these  economic impacts are overstated and rarely reach local communities as promised. When FIFA controls billions in funding with little transparency, players, fans, and national associations lose influence over how those funds are used, reinforcing a system where decisions are made from the top down. As a result, funding meant for youth training, facilities, and local development can be redirected without scrutiny, leaving fans and players to bear the consequences of decisions made behind closed doors. 

FIFA’s failed plan to create FFE and sell up to a 20% stake of it to private investors shows just how much power lies within individuals like Infantino. In order to become more transparent and accountable, FIFA must make sure that major financial decisions are subject to greater transparency, oversight, and accountability, rather than controlled by a small number of powerful people, to break the same cycle of corruption that has harmed its reputation for decades. Time and time again, FIFA has made attempts to commercialize or privatize, always resulting in corruption scandals and bribery. It is time for supporters, fans, and players around the world to demand greater transparency, oversight, and real accountability in FIFA’s financial decisions and put the future of soccer ahead of money.