A deepening revolt against FIFA President Gianni Infantino’s proposed investment overhaul gathered pace on Friday after one of his senior advisers resigned, warning that the plan could put the future of world football at risk.
The resignation of Carlos Cordeiro came only hours after the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) became the third continental governing body to reject FIFA’s proposal to open parts of its commercial operations to private investors. The move adds to growing opposition from both UEFA and Concacaf, leaving the initiative facing significant political resistance.
Cordeiro, a former president of the United States Soccer Federation who had advised FIFA on global strategy and governance since 2021, said he could no longer support the proposal.
“It is a bad deal for football,” he said in a statement, adding that the plan would “mortgage football’s future.”
He argued that FIFA’s responsibility extends beyond increasing commercial income.
“FIFA’s responsibility is not to maximise commercial returns at any cost. It is to protect and strengthen football for future generations. When those principles come into conflict, football must come first,” Cordeiro said.
His departure marks the first high-profile resignation linked directly to the proposal.
Growing resistance
The AFC said it stood alongside Europe and Concacaf in opposing the plan, arguing that FIFA had failed to consult member associations before advancing a proposal with far-reaching consequences.
In a strongly worded statement, the Asian confederation said football’s biggest competitions should be shaped collectively rather than through decisions made without broad agreement.
“The FIFA World Cup is the pinnacle of global football,” the AFC said, adding that any proposal threatening the tournament’s universal character should be reconsidered.
The confederation also criticised FIFA’s decision-making process, saying key stakeholders including member associations and even FIFA’s own governing bodies had been left on the sidelines.
The growing alliance against the proposal creates a formidable voting bloc. UEFA represents 55 member associations, Concacaf has 35, while the AFC has 46. Together they account for 136 of FIFA’s 211 members well above the simple majority required if the proposal reaches a vote.
What FIFA wants
Under the proposal, FIFA would establish a new commercial subsidiary to manage its flagship tournaments, including the men’s World Cup. External investors would be allowed to purchase minority, non-controlling stakes in the new entity, known as FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE).
FIFA says the structure would generate more revenue, allowing increased financial support for member associations and football development projects worldwide.
According to documents prepared for the proposal, the organisation believes additional investment could significantly increase future payments to national football associations.
The governing body has insisted that “nobody is selling football” and maintains that private investment would not compromise the sport’s governance or integrity.
Critics question transparency
Despite those assurances, critics say too many questions remain unanswered.
Cordeiro questioned why such a significant decision was being rushed and whether member associations had been given enough information to make an informed choice.
“Why this deal? Why now? What oversight exists? Who benefits?” he asked.
UEFA has gone further, warning that the World Cup should never become an investment product. Concacaf has also expressed concern about the consultation process rather than the financial model itself.
Different priorities across football
While wealthier European associations have been among the strongest critics, many developing football nations see the debate differently.
Officials from countries that depend heavily on FIFA funding argue that increased investment could provide much-needed resources for infrastructure, grassroots football and youth programmes.
Rogers Byamukama of the Uganda Football Federation said additional funding could help nations where financial resources remain limited.
“Any avenue that brings in more resources is good because those resources would be distributed and given to federations, especially on the African continent, and that would inspire growth,” he said.
That difference in priorities means the outcome remains uncertain. Although several confederations have publicly opposed the proposal, not every member association is expected to vote in line with its regional body.
About the Author
