FIFA has rarely been richer. After a commercially successful World Cup, the global football body expects record revenues and reserves running into the billions. Now two of its most powerful continental confederations want a sizeable part of that money handed back. UEFA and CONCACAF are calling for at least $10 million for every one of FIFA’s 211 member associations — a proposal worth roughly $2.1 billion and the latest escalation in the battle over President Gianni Infantino’s leadership.
$10 million for every national association
UEFA President Aleksander Čeferin and CONCACAF President Victor Montagliani sent the proposal to Infantino in a joint letter.
Their argument is straightforward: FIFA is expected to end the 2023–2026 cycle with reserves of around $6 billion, the highest level in its history. In their view, those funds should be used more aggressively to support the national associations that make up FIFA.
They are proposing that every member association receive at least $10 million during the 2027–2030 cycle, earmarked for infrastructure and football development.
Across all 211 associations, that would amount to roughly $2.11 billion.
The payment would come on top of FIFA’s existing development funding rather than replace it. Under the current FIFA Forward cycle, each association has been able to apply for up to $8 million between 2023 and 2026. FIFA says it has made $2.25 billion available under Forward 3.0 alone.
Why the money has suddenly become a battleground
The demand cannot be separated from the collapse of Infantino’s controversial FIFA Forward Enterprise project.
Earlier this year, FIFA explored creating a new commercial entity that would control major revenue-generating operations linked to FIFA competitions, including the World Cup. Outside investors were expected to inject around $4.2 billion in exchange for a minority stake.
That triggered an extraordinary backlash.
UEFA and its 55 national associations rejected the plan outright, arguing that ownership interests in the World Cup and other FIFA competitions should not be sold to private investors. At one point, UEFA even threatened to withdraw European teams from FIFA competitions.
FIFA later withdrew the project permanently.
The episode left Infantino’s critics with an obvious question: if FIFA already has billions of dollars in reserves, why did it need private capital in the first place?
Čeferin and Montagliani are now turning that question into a financial proposal.
FIFA has become an increasingly powerful cash machine
The scale of FIFA’s finances has changed dramatically under Infantino.
FIFA had originally targeted at least $11 billion in revenue for the 2023–2026 cycle. After the commercial success of the 2026 World Cup in Canada, Mexico and the United States, Infantino said revenues for the cycle were expected to exceed $15 billion.
The World Cup alone generated enough commercial momentum for FIFA to increase payments to the 48 participating national associations to a combined $871 million.
That success is part of the reason FIFA’s reserves are now drawing so much attention.
A reserve is not simply unused cash. Governing bodies need financial buffers to fund future tournaments, guarantee commitments, absorb unexpected costs and support long-term development programmes.
But the larger those reserves become, the harder another question is to avoid: how much should an organisation such as FIFA accumulate before more money is returned to the associations that own and govern it?
UEFA says the money belongs to football
UEFA has already made its position explicit.
In August, representatives of European national associations said FIFA’s billions in reserves ultimately belonged to its member associations and called for a responsible release of part of those funds while preserving FIFA’s financial stability.
The new joint proposal with CONCACAF puts a number on that principle.
Čeferin and Montagliani are also calling for an independent review of FIFA’s finances before final recommendations are made. They want access to the underlying assumptions behind FIFA’s budgets and reserve requirements rather than relying solely on headline numbers.
That is important because a $6 billion reserve figure does not mean all $6 billion is freely available for distribution. FIFA has future liabilities, tournament costs and long-term commitments that also need to be financed.
The dispute is therefore not simply about dividing up a bank balance.
It is about who gets to decide how much financial security FIFA needs — and what happens to everything beyond that.
The fight is also about power
The timing makes the proposal politically significant inside world football.
Infantino is expected to seek another term as FIFA president at the organisation’s congress in March 2027. UEFA has already said that if he does, it intends to work with other confederations to ensure national associations are offered a credible alternative candidate.
Montagliani himself has been mentioned as a possible challenger.
That means the proposed $10 million payments will inevitably be viewed through two lenses.
The first is financial: national associations, particularly smaller ones, could transform infrastructure, youth development and training facilities with an additional eight-figure payment.
The second is institutional: the same 211 associations that would receive the money also elect FIFA’s president.
There is no evidence that the UEFA-CONCACAF proposal makes those payments conditional on political support. Their public position is that development funding is an institutional responsibility and should not depend on concessions by member associations.
But in an election year, the distribution of billions across football’s voting membership is inevitably more than an accounting question.
The legacy of Infantino’s abandoned investor plan
That is particularly true because money for national associations was also central to the failed FIFA Forward Enterprise proposal.
Infantino had argued that bringing in outside capital could unlock significantly more development funding. According to reports on the plan, associations could ultimately have received as much as $40 million each under certain conditions.
His opponents are now effectively turning that argument against him.
If FIFA can afford substantially higher development payments from its existing balance sheet, they ask, why dilute control over the commercial value of the World Cup at all?
UEFA’s criticism has therefore moved beyond the mechanics of a failed investment transaction.
It is challenging the underlying strategy: whether FIFA should behave increasingly like a global sports corporation seeking external capital to maximise commercial growth, or like a member-owned governing body whose surpluses should flow more directly back into football.
A $6 billion question about what FIFA is for
That may be the most interesting business question behind the dispute.
FIFA has become extraordinarily effective at monetising its flagship product. The expanded World Cup, broadcasting rights, sponsorships and commercial partnerships have turned international football into a business generating revenues that would rival large listed companies.
Yet FIFA has no conventional shareholders expecting dividends.
Its stakeholders are its 211 national associations.
That creates a very different capital-allocation problem from the one facing a normal corporation.
A company can retain profits to fund acquisitions, investment or growth and ultimately increase shareholder value. FIFA must justify why money generated by football should remain concentrated within the organisation rather than being redistributed to develop the sport around the world.
Čeferin and Montagliani have now placed a price tag on that argument: $2.1 billion.
FIFA has yet to publicly respond to their proposal. The issue is expected to return at the next FIFA Council meeting on October 15.
By then, the debate will be about far more than whether each national association deserves another $10 million.
It will be about who controls football’s wealth — and what FIFA is supposed to do with it.
SK
