Listen to the editorial audio here: https://clyp.it/qjftnyky
Julio A. López, Editor-in-Chief. — We live in an era in which economic power appears to have stopped recognizing limits. Profitability takes precedence over transparency, financial interests displace the public interest, and opacity ceases to be the exception to become the norm. This is no longer a phenomenon confined to governments or large corporations; even institutions entrusted with assets of immense social and cultural value seem to be yielding to the same logic. FIFA, the governing body of the world’s most popular sport, headquartered in Switzerland, is going through one of the most heavily scrutinized periods in its recent history.
Under the presidency of Gianni Infantino, criticism over the concentration of decision-making, the limited consultation with the continental confederations, and the growing commercialization of football has ceased to be an internal matter and has become a global debate.
The public opposition expressed by UEFA and, more recently, by the Asian Football Confederation—historically one of Infantino’s principal allies—reveals that the controversy no longer revolves solely around FIFA’s administration, but also around the very nature of the institution and the future of its governance.
The initiative that is now dividing world football consists of creating a new commercial company, to be known as FIFA Forward Enterprise, into which the organization’s principal revenue-generating assets would be transferred—including media rights, sponsorships, licensing, ticket sales, and other commercial businesses. Based on this new structure, FIFA proposes selling up to a 20% stake to private investors in a transaction that values the company at approximately $20 billion and could raise more than $4 billion. FIFA maintains that it will retain majority control and that the proceeds will be used to strengthen the financial position of its 211 member associations.
However, it is precisely at this point that the questions begin—questions that no sports executive should dismiss. Among the investors expected to lead the transaction is Thrive Capital, the firm founded by Joshua Kushner, brother of Jared Kushner, son-in-law of U.S. President Donald Trump. JPMorgan is also participating as financial adviser, along with other Wall Street players. No one disputes the right of these investors to conduct business; what is under debate is whether an organization that governs the world’s most popular sport should open the door to private interests acquiring an economic stake in the commercial heart of football.
The concern goes beyond the identity of the investors. If FIFA’s most profitable business begins to answer, even in part, to shareholders whose natural objective is to maximize the return on their investment, who will guarantee that future sporting decisions will not ultimately become subordinated to strictly financial criteria? Where does the mission of governing world football end, and where does the logic of a corporation whose primary commitment is to increase the value of its assets begin?
Perhaps that is the real debate. It is not simply about selling an equity stake, but about redefining the nature of an institution created to govern a sport, not to behave like a global financial conglomerate.
When transparency declines, decision-making becomes increasingly concentrated, and economic interests carry growing weight, trust ceases to be an intangible asset and becomes the first victim.
History shows that major institutional crises never begin with a scandal; they begin when business ceases to recognize limits, and those entrusted with safeguarding an institution begin to manage it as though it were a private asset.
