Fifa ‘undermining the very foundations of football’, says AFC as Uefa talks loom
The Asian Football Confederation has accused Fifa of damaging football’s principles of solidarity, cooperation and transparency by proposing to sell a stake in World Cup commercial rights without consulting continental bodies. Its stance matters because the AFC has traditionally supported Fifa president Gianni Infantino and could hold the deciding influence over whether the proposal succeeds.
Fifa has agreed for Joshua Kushner’s Thrive Capital to buy 20% of a new company controlling commercial rights to global tournaments, with national associations offered an initial $20m (£15m) payment if they approve it by 19 September. Uefa and Concacaf oppose the plan, while Conmebol and Caf support Infantino; Uefa’s 55 members will hold an emergency meeting, where a possible boycott of Fifa tournaments is expected to be discussed.
- AFC joins opposition to Fifa’s World Cup commercial-rights proposal.
- The confederation says Fifa failed to consult it properly.
- Uefa may discuss boycotting Fifa tournaments.
New here? Start with this
FIFA is considering selling a stake in the company that controls the commercial rights to its major tournaments, including the World Cup. The plan involves an investment firm buying a portion of this commercial operation, which generates enormous sums from broadcasting and sponsorship deals. The Asian Football Confederation has challenged this proposal, saying FIFA should have discussed it with continental governing bodies beforehand.
The dispute reflects tensions between FIFA's leadership under president Gianni Infantino and different regional football confederations around the world. The AFC, which oversees football across Asia, has historically backed Infantino but is now questioning whether the deal respects principles of cooperation and transparency. Other confederations are divided on the proposal: UEFA and the regional bodies for Central and North America oppose it, whilst the African and South American confederations support it.
The significance of this row lies in how FIFA's tournaments are governed and how money from them is distributed. If major confederations oppose the deal, they could refuse to participate in FIFA competitions, which would be extremely damaging to the organisation. The question of whether FIFA acts with the agreement of the continental bodies that represent thousands of clubs and millions of players affects the future of the sport's administration.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The AFC’s objection reflects a concern that selling a substantial share of World Cup commercial rights without consulting the continental bodies weakens transparency and the cooperative governance on which international football depends. Even if the proposed investment brings money to national associations, they may reasonably question whether a one-off payment justifies giving up influence over valuable rights and setting a precedent for decisions made without their meaningful involvement.
The case against
Fifa and supporters of the deal could argue that bringing in private capital offers a practical way to unlock value from global tournament rights and provide funds to national associations, potentially supporting football development worldwide. They may also say that the proposal is a commercial decision for Fifa to make, and that an initial payment gives associations a tangible benefit while the new company pursues growth.