If you thought the 2026 Fifa World Cup final was the highlight of the sporting year, think again.
Instead, it became the opening act for a far bigger battle: Gianni Infantino’s attempt to privatise the commercial engine of world football alongside a consortium of private equity investors, in a move that could have positioned him as the undisputed commissioner of the world’s biggest sporting spectacle.
Under the proposed Fifa Forward Enterprise (FFE), a new commercial entity would have assumed control of the World Cup’s commercial rights, with private investors — assembled by Infantino — acquiring up to 20 per cent of the company. They reportedly included Joshua Kushner, brother of Donald Trump’s son-in-law, who led the deal through his firm, Thrive Capital.
While Fifa initially insisted the proposal would require neither a formal Council seat nor a Congress vote, a promised cash injection of up to USD40 million for each Member Association (MA) would have delivered enormous informal influence. For many smaller MAs, where governance standards remain weak, such an influx of funding — packaged as grassroots development — could have created ample opportunities for abuse.
Even if most of the funding reached its intended recipients, enough could still have disappeared along the way to create a tidy legacy fund for those already in power.
And what was in it for Gianni? According to reporting by The Times, Infantino was in line to become FFE’s appointed commissioner after his Fifa presidency ends in 2031, with remuneration reportedly benchmarked against National Football League commissioner Roger Goodell’s USD64 million annual salary.
A remarkably cosy retirement plan.
Despite assurances that FFE would remain a majority-owned Fifa subsidiary, the proposed commercial vehicle — operating within Fifa, led by the man who conceived it and backed by investors he had assembled — would effectively have sidestepped many of the organisation’s own governance safeguards.
For now, the proposal has been shelved following widespread opposition and internal resistance. But it would be premature to conclude that the idea has disappeared for good.
The FFE saga offers a valuable lesson in how collective resistance can check powerful figures in sport. As this episode shows, several key lessons emerge:
- Brave institutional pushback: Uefa, Concacaf, the Asian Football Confederation and the English FA were unequivocal in opposing the proposal. They issued clear public statements based on governance principles instead of retreating behind diplomatic language.
In Malaysia, when governance broke down last year following the doctored documentation scandal involving seven footballers and public outrage intensified, not a single member association or ecosystem partner issued a firm statement demanding accountability.
On this front, Malaysian netizens deserve credit. Supporters, grassroots communities and ordinary football fans have remained vocal and persistent. Their pressure alone has helped force at least some measure of accountability.
Unfortunately, Malaysian football still lacks the first four ingredients mentioned above.
Until more leaders demonstrate the conscience, backbone and courage to speak truth to power, Malaysian football will remain vulnerable to those who place personal interests above the sport.
If Malaysian football fails to learn from the FFE saga, it may only be a matter of time before another version emerges — and quietly secures approval.
The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the writer and do not represent those of Twentytwo13.
