FIFA boss’ profiteering risks ruining the beautiful game

Under Sepp Blatter, FIFA became synonymous with patronage and scandal to many. Yet his successor Gianni Infantino, as head of the world football body, risks eclipsing even that legacy. His failed attempt to sell a stake in the World Cup to Thrive Capital, an investment company run by Josh Kushner, brother of Jared Kushner, the son-in-law of the United States president, looked uncomfortably like an offering to Washington, using football’s greatest prize as political currency.

In essence, FIFA sought to sell a 20 percent stake in a new commercial subsidiary controlling World Cup revenues to a private equity firm tied to the US president’s inner circle. The plan would reportedly have earned Infantino a commissioner-style role, paying around $30 million a year — five times his current salary.

The question now being asked is what else Infantino expected in return for further strengthening his standing with a US president he has repeatedly described as a close friend.

The backlash to the plan was predictable and entirely justified. The Union of European Football Associations and others were angered not only because they learned of the proposal through media reports, but because it violated a basic principle: the World Cup is not a private asset to be monetized for a handful of investors. Should commercial partners with political connections acquire a financial stake, the pressure to influence decisions will inevitably follow. At that point, FIFA would cease to be the guardian of the tournament and become its broker.

If investors closely associated with the White House stand to profit directly from football’s biggest event, can FIFA credibly claim political neutrality? Countries already facing strained relations with the US, such as Iran, would have every reason to question whether commercial interests and political preferences might shape the tournament’s administration. Even the perception of such influence would damage the World Cup’s credibility.

With the deal abandoned and revolt spreading inside FIFA, Infantino’s swagger has disappeared. Reports suggest Infantino repeatedly tried to reach the US president by phone before seeking support from US Secretary of State Marco Rubio under the banner of promoting football as the US’ “soft power”. Few were persuaded. As an insider bluntly put it, this was about saving his job, not promoting the sport. On Tuesday, FIFA denied the reports.

Infantino should remember that FIFA is still rebuilding its reputation after years of corruption scandals. Fresh questions have already emerged over allegations that political pressure influenced disciplinary decisions during this year’s World Cup, including controversy surrounding the overturning of a red card shown to US striker Folarin Balogun. Whether those claims withstand scrutiny or not, immediately pursuing a business arrangement that appeared to favor the associates of the FIFA boss’ close pal displayed astonishingly poor judgment.

Infantino insists he is expanding football’s reach. He has proposed a bigger World Cup, more teams, more matches — and as hasn’t escaped notice — more money-making opportunities. Expansion looks more like commercial opportunism than sporting vision. Every additional fixture creates more broadcasting slots, sponsorship inventory and advertising revenue, while concentrating influence among an ever-smaller circle of powerful hands.

The same philosophy underpins some of Infantino’s so-called “innovations” such as mandatory “hydration breaks”. Officially introduced for player welfare, they also create perfectly timed commercial pauses that interrupt football’s natural rhythm. Infantino presents every change as progress, yet too often the beneficiaries are broadcasters, sponsors and executives rather than supporters.

Football belongs to the people. The FIFA president is supposed to protect that inheritance, not mortgage it. Infantino’s failed World Cup stake sale exposed a governing philosophy in which the game’s greatest treasure is no longer a public trust, but another asset to be traded among the powerful. That is precisely why the revolt against him deserves to succeed.