FIFA has dropped its controversial plan to introduce private investment into its flagship competitions after widespread opposition from football’s governing bodies and member associations.

FIFA President Gianni Infantino confirmed the decision, saying the proposal had divided world football and no longer served its purpose. "It has become clear that this project has created divisions that are no longer in the interest of our original objective," Infantino said. This proposal will not be going ahead, therefore.

The plan would have allowed outside investors to buy minority, non-controlling stakes in a new commercial subsidiary that would run FIFA’s biggest tournaments, including the men’s and women’s World Cups.

FIFA has offered financial incentives to its 211 member associations to encourage their support. Federations supporting the proposal would have been entitled to payments, beginning with an initial payment of up to $20 million and long-term payments forecast across future competition cycles.

Football opposition around the world

FIFA’s regional confederations immediately resisted the proposal.

The Asian Football Confederation (AFC) welcomed FIFA's decision to scrap the plan. “Major decisions impacting global football should be based on consultation and respect for established governance,” said AFC President Shaikh Salman bin Ebrahim Al Khalifa.

UEFA had warned earlier that its 55 member associations would boycott FIFA World Cups if the proposal moved forward. Concacaf also rejected the initiative, and the AFC later followed UEFA and Concacaf.

UEFA, Concacaf and the AFC together represent 136 voting associations, making it unlikely that the proposal will secure the majority of 211 FIFA members needed for it to pass.

The Confederation of African Football (CAF) and the Oceania Football Confederation (OFC) were set to discuss the proposal later. South America’s CONMEBOL asked for more information before giving their stance.

Internal critique

The proposal also was met with criticism within FIFA.

“It was a one-person project,” said Chief Operating Officer Kevin Lamour, who also said the administration of the organisation was misled during the development of the project.

Carlos Cordeiro, Infantino’s senior adviser for global strategy and governance, quit over the plan. FIFA did not need outside investors to raise the value of its competitions, he said in a public statement, adding it was “a bad deal for football”.

FIFA's leaders should bring the game together, not divide it, Lamour said, adding that he would accept the professional consequences of his views.

The investment model suggested

As part of the proposal, FIFA planned to create a commercial company, FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE), that would manage the commercial rights of its major tournaments.

Investment bank JP Morgan produced a 25-page presentation outlining the proposal, forecasting increased financial returns for member associations across the 2035-2039 cycle. FIFA, the global governing body of football, was called “under-monetised” despite the World Cup’s global popularity and plans for new commercial initiatives and performance-based compensation.

Thrive Eternal was named as the likely lead investor in the proposal. The firm is linked to Joshua Kushner, an American venture capitalist and brother of Jared Kushner, U.S. President Donald Trump's son-in-law.

The document made no mention of investment in women’s football, a point that was noted as a criticism by some observers.

Infantino comes under fire

The botched proposal has put Infantino under more scrutiny as he prepares to seek a fourth term as FIFA president at the organisation's Congress in Morocco next March.

He was widely expected to be returned unopposed until recently. But the controversy has raised questions about whether some member associations may reconsider their support.

“Now I want to rebuild the consensus among the members of FIFA and to continue to focus on the strengthening of football development, in particular in the countries that have fewer resources,” said Infantino.

As the presidential election nears, it should become evident whether the episode has any lasting political consequences for his leadership.