ФИФА-гийн ерөнхийлөгч Жанни Инфантино байгууллагын арилжааны үйл ажиллагааг тусгаарлан хувьчлах төлөвлөгөөгөө танилцууллаа

He is very online but does not like the media. He flies all over the world in a fancy private plane provided by Qatar.

He presides over a large organisation, with committees and a big rulebook, but makes all the key decisions and only tells a few people what he is doing.

He loves shiny things and fireworks. He wants to do more business with the Kushner family and believes he is underpaid.

His preferred strategy is to double down, flood the zone and ask for more — it is an approach that has worked well for him so far.

Some people think he is amazing, some do not.

Can you tell who it is yet?

No, not him, the other one.

Yes! It’s FIFA president Gianni Infantino, who is back in the news again after a break of… 24 hours?

The newest Infantino headline is that he wants to put all the money-making parts of FIFA into a new company and then sell 20 per cent of it to private investors because… well, never mind about that. Have I mentioned that by letting him do this, each of FIFA’s 211 member countries will get $40million (£30m) over the next four years, as opposed to just $10m they are currently down for?

I hadn’t? Right, well, that is the pitch, and those member associations have until September 19 — a whole 52 days away — to decide if they are in or out.

For his supporters, the choice is simple. More money is the answer to every problem a national football federation might have. If you ran the game in Aruba or Zimbabwe, why wouldn’t you do this? Seriously.

But, for his critics, this is the last chance to say “Enough!” or, at very least, “Hang on. Can we have a moment to think about this, please?”

Given Infantino’s desire to move fast and fix/break things, this story will progress quickly.

On one side, votes are being counted, contracts drawn up and logos designed, but on the other, potential rebels are firing off Zoom invites to federation chiefs for emergency meetings from their post-World Cup sun beds.

So, without further ado, here is The Athletic’s attempt to answer five questions that jumped out to us on Tuesday evening.

Who is going to invest in this new company and what is in it for them?

The first thing to say is that FIFA was caught on the hop when it became clear on Tuesday that the broad brushstrokes of Infantino’s plan had leaked to the media.

That forced the governing body to ask the London-based PR agency it has been working with on this project for months to start making calls to try to put a more positive spin on things, and also rush out a press release with more details about the scheme.

Some might say we still only have the broad brushstrokes, but Infantino sent a five-page letter to the leaders of FIFA’s member associations on Tuesday evening. The Athletic has seen this letter. FIFA also published its own Frequently Asked Questions guide the next day.

Between all that, we now know Infantino wants to create a subsidiary called FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE) that “consolidates FIFA’s commercial and event operations”, which means FFE would take control of selling media rights, sponsorships and tickets for the men’s and women’s World Cups, the Club World Cups and so on.

Old-fashioned FIFA would then focus on governing the game, disciplinary matters, rules and all the other bits nobody wants to pay for. However, it would also keep an 80 per cent share of FFE, with Infantino, or whoever else is FIFA president, also becoming chair of FFE’s board.

The rest of FFE, if a majority of those 211 member associations say “yes”, will be sold to a “geographically-diversified investor group” led by Thrive Eternal, a long-term investment firm set up in April this year by Thrive Capital founder Joshua Kushner. He just so happens to be the younger brother of Jared Kushner, who is U.S. President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, advisor and special envoy for peace missions.

How Thrive was chosen for this opportunity has not been explained, beyond FIFA saying it has been advised by global bank JP Morgan, the Italian consultancy firm OpenEconomics and former Liberty Media chief executive Greg Maffei. How any of those advisors were chosen has not been explained either.

According to the plan, Infantino wants to sell a fifth of FFE to the Thrive-led group for $4.2billion (£3.1bn). He will then distribute this windfall to those member associations who want to “participate” via a new funding scheme called FIFA Fast-Forward Programme (FFFP), on top of the regular FIFA Forward Programme (FFP) grants all federations have received since 2016.

If the whole scheme is approved, member associations can look forward to a $20million one-off FFFP payment, plus an increased FFP grant over the next four years of another $20m, which gives us our $40m figure. If the stake sale is not given the green light, member associations will only get $10m via FFP between now and 2030, which is an increase on the last four-year cycle ($8m) but not the life-changing one Infantino is dangling in front of them.

Thrive will not be short of potential partners, as private-equity firms and sovereign wealth funds have been lining up to do this type of deal for years.

CVC Capital Partners has made similar, very lucrative investments in Formula 1 and rugby union, so will surely take a look at this one, too. You would think it would interest the likes of Ares, Blackstone, Apollo Global Capital, KKR and Dynasty. And “geographically-diversified” sounds like code for a Gulf-based sovereign-wealth body, such as Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund.

As for why these investors would do this deal, it is the same answer as our proverbial small federation: why not? One upfront payment for a cut of FIFA’s commercial revenues for… how long? Again, we are waiting for an answer on that.

But the experience from every sporting body that has done this type of deal before is that the funds always win, in much the same way the funds won when the UK government asked for private investment to help it construct hospitals and schools. Yes, British taxpayers got their new building — but they could have had two or three of them by the time they finish paying for it.

Who is Joshua Kushner and how close to Donald Trump is he?

As mentioned, the 41-year-old American is the younger brother of Ivanka Trump’s husband Jared Kushner.

His father is Charles Kushner, a property developer, lawyer and the current U.S. ambassador to France and Monaco, who was convicted of illegal campaign contributions, tax evasion and witness tampering in 2005. That brought him a two-year prison sentence and disbarred him from practising law in three states. However, he was pardoned by Trump, his son Jared’s father-in-law, at the end of his first presidential term in 2020. Charles used to be a Democrat but has more recently become a big donor to Trump’s campaigns.

Joshua, on the other hand, is still a Democrat, as FIFA, FFE’s PR team and Thrive have been keen to highlight. He and his wife, supermodel Karlie Kloss, have donated to Barack Obama’s foundation, while Karlie has publicly supported the last three Democratic presidential candidates and campaigned for abortion rights. They were also both invited to Taylor Swift’s recent wedding to NFL star Travis Kelce, too, so their non-MAGA credentials are strong.

Joshua is still close to his brother and dad, though, and they are key figures in Trump’s court. We will never know if this has helped, hindered or had no impact whatsoever on his business career.

But we do know that Joshua founded Thrive Capital with $5million in seed capital when he was only 24. Now, 17 years, some big-name investors and nine funds later, Thrive has $50bn in assets under management and Joshua’s personal wealth is estimated to be circa $5bn.

He has made that money by investing in media and tech start-ups, such as Instagram, OpenAI and Spotify, but he also bought a small stake in the NBA’s Memphis Grizzlies in 2019, before selling that and buying a similar chunk of the same basketball league’s Miami Heat franchise. If the NBA ever does get around to creating a new team in Las Vegas, Thrive would like a piece of them, too.

But his biggest move in sport so far has probably been the very first deal his new venture Thrive Eternal did in April, when it agreed to buy a minority stake in baseball’s San Francisco Giants. That one is still waiting for league approval.

How much money will this raise and what will this money be used for?

For Kushner and company? Who knows?

But if the proposed FFE structure was in place now, the private investors would be looking at one-fifth of the $15billion FIFA made in the four-year cycle that culminated with this summer’s World Cup, a return of $3bn, then. Not bad for an investment of $4.2bn, with plenty more four-year cycles to come.

OK, everyone knows this cycle was particularly lucrative (it was double the amount FIFA earned in the four years to the Qatar 2022 World Cup), as it included the first 32-team Club World Cup and a 48-team World Cup largely staged in the planet’s richest market. FIFA did not leave much change on the table this summer. There would appear to be little chance of matching that figure with a men’s World Cup mostly held in Morocco, Portugal and Spain.

Unless, of course, 16 teams and 24 group-stage games are added to that tournament to give Infantino his 64-team “global happiness” provider and/or the Club World Cup is expanded somehow. Both of those tweaks would give FFE the added inventory it needs to hit the same revenue number at the 2026 World Cup, despite not being able to charge as much for tickets.

And if the extra games do not do it, FFE will also have the chance to charge broadcasters for the extra advertising slots those hydration breaks have provided. At this summer’s tournament, that added revenue was a pleasant surprise for FIFA’s media partners.

If all of the above sounds a bit vague, it is. We are all guessing. But one educated guess as to why Infantino is so keen on this idea is that he knows not every World Cup cycle can be an American jackpot, so setting up a newco that is totally focused on commercialising the main tournaments, plus the initial sweetener from the private investors, should smooth out those peaks and troughs a little.

While there is no direct evidence that this is one of Infantino’s motivations, a benefit being discussed within football by sources, who asked to remain anonymous to protect relationships, would be that it would give Infantino political cover for any nakedly commercial moves.

Other sources, who have also been kept anonymous to protect relationships, have speculated this is all about creating a post-2031 job for Infantino. The fourth and final term as FIFA president that he would be eligible for — and that he is currently running for — would end in 2031. This job could pay him similar amounts of cash to what the commissioners of North America’s big leagues earn.

FIFA denies that there have been any discussions about Infantino taking the role. The FAQ states: “The proposal does not establish a future role or compensation package for any specific individual. FFE would have a dedicated management team and board of Directors. None of these roles have been filled yet. Should the project be supported and approved by a majority of MAs and the FIFA Council, an appropriate process will be conducted to fill these roles.”

The Athletic has been told by several sources, all of whom spoke under the condition of anonymity to protect relationships, that Infantino sees himself as a U.S.-style commissioner. The NFL’s Roger Goodell earns about $60million a year, by the way, 10 times the pittance FIFA pays Infantino.

Goodell earns about 10-times Infantino’s salary (Emilee Chinn/Getty Images)

But what is all this money for, anyway?

FIFA, which never tires of telling everyone it is a non-profit organisation, says it only exists to raise as much money as it can from its activities, which it then shares out among its members so they can grow the game in their own patches. Most of this money is dished out via the FIFA Forward Programme Infantino created when he replaced Sepp Blatter in 2016. Those grants have already quadrupled under his watch to $8million every four years, and he is now saying they could be $20m in the next cycle, $22m in the one after that, and $24m from 2035 onward.

These are fantastic sums of money for at least three quarters of FIFA’s member associations, who all utterly depend on these grants to pay for their national training centres, development projects, coaching courses and grassroots facilities. As FIFA point out in their FAQ, funding also helped “nations like Cape Verde, Curacao, Jordan and Uzbekistan reach the FIFA World Cup for the first time.”

Sadly, before Infantino’s time, some have also used this money to buy beachfront property, fancy cars and endless holidays. FIFA assures us those days are in the past. FIFA also says that — unlike the bad old days under Blatter — it does ask its member associations to explain what they will do with the money, and it checks up on them.

The view within the game is that there is a lot less corruption and waste than there was, but completely eradicating it is almost impossible. A FIFA spokesperson said: “FIFA underwent deep-rooted governance and management reforms over the last decade with a clear focus on transparency and on its mandate to develop football all around the world.”

A better question, perhaps, is why FIFA thinks these member associations need all this extra money now? After all, their Forward grants have been going up anyway (because FIFA itself has been aggressively monetising its assets) and FIFA is sitting on about $4billion in reserves. So it could fund the Fast-Forward programme without having to sell a chunk of its future revenues to Kushner and company.

FIFA did not provide an answer to that one in its FAQ document.

Who could stop this, and will they?

You, me, all of us. We could stop this tomorrow by not watching anymore. But we’re all hopelessly addicted, and Infantino knows it.

What he cannot know, and does not appear to worry about much, is how our children will respond to simply being served more and more of the same thing (or probably not even the same thing, as the quality will inevitably be diluted and the superstars will break down or start picking and choosing when to try). Particularly when the same thing keeps going up in price.

But that is not going to happen soon enough to stop this plan.

So, the only way to do it is for the bigger, richer member associations, allied with the clubs, leagues and the players’ unions (ie the talent and those who pay and develop the talent), to get together and say “enough, Gianni, enough”.

Since this story broke, we have seen two strong statements from European football’s governing body UEFA. But as FIFA and UEFA have been locked in mortal combat for years, green-ink statements from UEFA are priced in at FIFA HQ. The have-nots in FIFA’s membership also tend to side with FIFA whenever the haves at UEFA pipe up. Infantino understands these politics better than anyone.

But, more interestingly, we have also seen expressions of annoyance from North and Central American confederation Concacaf and the Asian Football Confederation.

Of these, the former is the most significant as Concacaf member associations hosted last year’s Club World Cup and this summer’s World Cup, with the 2031 Women’s World Cup already booked in and Infantino eager to bring the Club World Cup and men’s World Cup back to North America as soon as he can. And while Concacaf’s members might not have much to do with it, it will be money from the Concacaf region that makes or breaks FIFA Forward Enterprise.

At the moment, only UEFA, in terms of FIFA’s membership, has really attacked the principle of the idea. AFC, Concacaf, the federations in England, France, Germany and elsewhere and global players’ union FIFPro have only criticised the process, with their main beef being they knew nothing about this until they read it in the media.

When you consider that all of these organisations are represented on the FIFA Council, which is meant to be Infantino’s cabinet, that is pretty bad…but it is not bad enough for any of them to say they are willing to do anything that would make him stop in his tracks, such as boycott the World Cup or just leave FIFA. Not yet, anyway.

Europe’s 55 member associations are holding an online meeting on Thursday. Some are opposed to both the process and the principle of what Infantino is doing, some just the process. The Czech FA’s newly-elected president has already rather let down the idea of European unity by telling Sky News that he quite likes the plan.

But let us say a majority of UEFA’s members can agree to stick together. What then? With Africa, most of Asia, Oceania’s minnows and a South America desperate to close the financial gap with Europe and host more than the currently scheduled three games at the 2030 World Cup, Infantino knows he has the votes.

The only way to stop this is if England, France, Germany et al team up with Europe’s clubs, leagues and unions, and remind FIFA that six of the eight quarter-finalists this summer were UEFA teams, stacked with stars who grew up and work in Europe. Most of Morocco’s team, one of two non-European quarter-finalists, also learned their trade in European club academies, while most of Argentina’s team play for European clubs.Europe provided five of eight quarter-finalists at the last Women’s World Cup and Club World Cup, too.

Europe is also staging most of the next men’s World Cup and will, unless Infantino can pluck a rival candidate out of thin air, be hosting the 2035 Women’s World Cup in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

Andy Burnham has spoken out against the proposal (Kirsty Wigglesworth – WPA Pool/Getty Images)

And there is another card Europe can play, which is the potential intervention of national governments and/or the European Commission. British prime minister Andy Burnham and French sports minister Marina Ferrari are among the politicians who have spoken out against FIFA’s proposal, while Europe’s leagues already lodged a complaint at the European Commission against FIFA for abusing its dominant market position. That was sparked by Infantino’s refusal to consult the leagues on his various plans to create and expand tournaments, and the Brussels-based organisation is mulling over whether to open a formal investigation.

Europe matters, then, although it would help European football’s cause if it tried to find common ground with its counterparts in North and Central America, Asia, Oceania and anywhere else there is opposition to Infantino’s autocratic style and relentless attempts to increase FIFA’s share of the global football economy.

Will they? They might. There is certainly enough anger out there. It just needs someone or something to harness it and use it effectively. Infantino may have provided the thing: the perception that he is willing to sell the World Cup for his own ambitions.

And that is a tough sell, even in Aruba and Zimbabwe.