FIFA’s decision to explore selling ownership stakes in its flagship competitions has triggered a wave of institutional pushback, with England’s Football Association warning on Wednesday that it remains largely in the dark about a proposal that has already drawn sharp criticism from UEFA and Britain’s own prime minister.
The controversy traces back to Tuesday, when football’s global governing body unveiled plans for a new commercial subsidiary designed to run its major events, a structure reportedly carrying ties to the extended family of US President Donald Trump. The announcement landed like a shockwave across European football, prompting UEFA to declare bluntly that the World Cup is not “an asset to trade.”
The FA’s response, while more measured in tone, was no less pointed in substance. In a statement issued Wednesday, the organisation made clear it had been given no advance notice and was working with almost no real information about what the plan actually entails. “We were completely unaware of this proposal and have no substantive details, including what the proposition actually is, and what conditions are attached,” the FA said, adding that what little it does know has already raised serious questions. “Based on the limited information, we are deeply concerned about the lack of process and governance to get to this point, and the apparent substance and principles involved.” The FA said it would withhold further judgment until FIFA delivers on its promise of full transparency, at which point it intends to state its position clearly.
Political reaction followed quickly. Prime Minister Andy Burnham took to social media to reject the premise of the deal outright, arguing that football’s value lies precisely in the fact that it belongs to no one. “Football does not belong to investors,” he wrote, adding, “The World Cup is not a product. It is the greatest competition in world sport, and it was never anyone’s to sell.”
FIFA, for its part, has sought to frame the plan as a controlled and limited commercial arrangement rather than a surrender of authority. The new entity, FIFA Forward Enterprise, would bring in “long-term investors who will purchase minority, non-controlling interests” in the subsidiary, according to the governing body, which insists it will retain sole ownership control over FFE along with exclusive authority over football governance, competition structures, scheduling, and all regulatory and sporting decisions.
Whether that framing will be enough to quiet the growing criticism from national federations and political figures alike remains to be seen, particularly as more details of the arrangement are expected to emerge in the coming days.
