Categories Finance

Did Trump and His In-Laws Break the FIFA World Cup?

  • 2026年7月31日
  • Estimated read time 13 min read
  • 0 comments

Football: The World’s Most Profitable Sport Facing Exploitation

As we navigate the complexities of late-stage capitalism intertwined with the emergence of techno-fascism, a vital perspective is to maintain a healthy skepticism regarding the actions and motives of those in power. Since the onset of the 2026 World Cup, concerns have been raised about the potential repercussions of Donald Trump’s influence on this celebrated global event. Regrettably, our initial fears have not only been realized but have intensified.

Sadly, the repercussions continue to spiral, prompting ongoing scrutiny of the Trump-Infantino-led 2026 World Cup—almost two weeks after its conclusion. This was not the outcome anyone anticipated. The aftermath was expected to diminish, rather than escalate. My apologies to those uninterested in football; allow me to draw a parallel from Michael Corleone…

A Brief Overview of Events So Far…

FIFA’s profit-driven President, Gianni Infantino, established a disconcerting precedent in November by bestowing Trump with FIFA’s inaugural Mickey Mouse peace prize—an action deemed by critics as a breach of the organization’s political neutrality standards. Furthermore, FIFA chose to lease the 17th floor of Trump Tower in the lead-up to the tournament.

Throughout the tournament, the FIFA World Cup evolved into yet another platform for Trump’s cruelty and corruption. US immigration officials denied entry to Somali referee Omar Artan, alongside numerous fans, and the Trump administration took the alarming step of preventing the Iranian national team from staying in the US following its matches.

FIFA itself has not been immune to allegations of greed and malpractice. The organization implemented dynamic pricing for matches and profited from inflated secondary ticket markets, effectively pricing out fans from less affluent backgrounds. Additional controversies included enforced three-minute commercial hydration breaks during the first and second halves, altering the traditional flow of the game.

The most significant scandal emerged later in the tournament when FIFA yielded to pressure from Trump and his associates to overturn a one-match suspension for US forward Folarin Balogun during the quarter-final against Belgium. The chaos that erupted after the final whistle of the championship match between Spain and Argentina, instigated by agitated Argentine players, encapsulated the tournament’s troubling atmosphere.

However, all these incidents seemed insignificant compared to the aftermath. After succumbing to Spain in the final, many Argentinians are grappling with the sting of defeat. Social media buzz suggests some believe Argentina fell victim to a FIFA conspiracy, despite benefitting from numerous favorable officiating decisions throughout the competition.

Seizing on this discontent, the Milei government has unilaterally altered immigration laws to enable the expulsion of any foreign nationals who convey “messages of hatred” toward Argentina or its symbols. As one NC reader, Ciroc, observed regarding Milei’s criticisms of Brazil’s President Lula, the leader had “clearly hoped a victory would elevate his approval ratings… With that aspiration dashed, he’s left with no choice but to retaliate.”

The most astonishing scandal surfaced on Tuesday when Infantino announced plans to effectively privatize the World Cup, establishing a for-profit organization that will allow US investors direct involvement in the tournament’s commercial ventures. Should this scheme materialize, the lead investor is rumored to be Thrive Eternal, a private equity firm founded by Joshua Kushner, brother of Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law.

From The Athletic:

FIFA has unveiled plans to divest a substantial minority stake in a newly established entity set to manage its major events, including the World Cup and Club World Cup, with the aim of tripling development funds distributed to its 211 member associations.

This initiative, contingent upon approval by a majority of member associations and FIFA’s 37-member council, will see a new company called FIFA Forward Enterprises (FFE) handling commercial operations, while FIFA retains its status as the global governing body and holds a majority stake in FFE.

Critics have argued that as long as Infantino remains at the helm, it will be the Trump-aligned investors wielding actual control. This initiative seems predicated on draining every conceivable financial resource from football until there is nothing left. Once accessible to the working class, football is now the richest sport worldwide and arguably among the most influenced by corporate greed.

Now the goal appears to be complete financial extraction.

Infantino’s strategy (or misstrategy) appears straightforward: to sway the votes of smaller, economically disadvantaged national football associations in the Global South through two primary lures:

  • Opportunities for participation in future expanded World Cups. The 2026 WC, increased to 48 teams, welcomed four nations for the first time: Curacao, Jordan, Uzbekistan, and Cape Verde, which even reached the knock-out stage and almost defeated Argentina in one of the tournament’s most riveting matches. Infantino is now promoting a tantalizing 64-team tournament for 2030.
  • A one-off payout of $40 million to each association, contingent upon the agreement of a majority. These associations only have five weeks to make their choice—this decision could irrevocably alter FIFA’s organizational structure. Should the majority decline, they will receive only a third of the promised amount.

Several countries have already indicated interest in this offer…

The situation becomes increasingly troubling when examining the financial implications. Infantino seeks to sell a significant portion of this lucrative non-profit organization—something that requires further investigation—at a surprisingly low price. Duncan Castles, a sports reporter for The Times of London, conducted some rough calculations:

Infantino aims to sell the World Cup to Trump’s affiliates and others for $4.2 billion. • [At] a valuation of $20 billion, this suggests a sale of a 21% stake. • Eleven days prior, FIFA projected 2023-26 revenues to exceed $15 billion. • This means $4.2 billion for a 21% slice of about $3.75 billion in annual income, resulting in a multiple of 5.33x revenue.

In 2019, Silver Lake paid a multiple of 5.8x revenue for approximately 10% of City Football Group. BlueCo bought Chelsea at a multiple of 4.9x revenue in a UK-government-enforced sale. Ineos acquired 25% of Manchester United at multiples ranging from 7 to 8. In 2025, a minority stake in MLS club LAFC sold for 7.9x revenue. The UFC and WWE’s parent company trades at roughly 6.2x revenue. The last Major League Baseball franchise to sell changed hands for 5.3x revenue. NFL’s Washington Commanders recently sold for 10x revenue, while NBA’s LA Lakers are expected to sell for approximately 16x revenue.

The World Cup is the most significant sporting event humanity has ever created, and arguably one of our most crucial cross-cultural gatherings. As noted by@rpmcomo, it has virtually zero acquisition costs for talent (a stark contrast to other sports properties).

None of the aforementioned football clubs approach the World Cup’s level of profitability, yet Gianni Infantino aspires to sell this esteemed entity at a valuation that is either dramatically underpriced or driven by personal agenda.

It will come as no surprise that the proposal has been crafted by JP Morgan, the same bank behind the ill-fated European Super League five years ago. Only months prior, the bank was also discussing providing financial backing to Trump’s Board of Peace initiative, tasked with rebuilding Gaza amid ongoing conflict in the region.

The sheer magnitude of greed and corruption has compelled many football enthusiasts and analysts to yearn for the more subtle forms of graft from the past. As Branko Milankovic remarks, the corruption under Infantino far surpasses that under his scandal-prone predecessor, Sepp Blatter:

Blatter’s corruption was the typical, naive exchange of envelopes under the table. Infantino’s corruption involves a financial level orchestrated by investment banks like JP Morgan, marking a shift that fundamentally undermines the game and traditional competitions that have been built up over a century. Football shouldn’t be a playground for bankers!

On a positive note, Infantino’s plans have already encountered significant hurdles. On the one hand, the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee in Washington has turned its attention to this issue, with ranking Democrat member Jamie Raskin stating to Politico, “FIFA—Donald Trump’s favorite corrupt enterprise in global sports—is now entering into partnership with the Trump family!”

If the Democrats regain control of the House in November, Raskin and his colleagues would have the authority to summon Infantino for testimony and demand a detailed list of gifts extended to Trump, communications related to Justice Department matters, and visitor logs for FIFA’s Miami headquarters and Trump Tower office.

Equally crucial, UEFA—the Union of European Football Associations—wants no part of this initiative and is prepared to boycott all FIFA events. This powerful regional football organization announced recently that neither it nor its 55 member associations would engage in any FIFA competitions as long as FIFA’s plans to transfer ownership stakes to private investors are on the table.

UEFA’s concise statement makes a compelling case for all national and regional football associations to reject Infantino’s venture and is worth reading in its entirety (emphasis mine):

The World Cup should never be treated as an investment commodity. It stands as one of football’s most significant legacies, cultivated over generations by players, national teams, and supporters globally. It should never fall into the hands of private investors. The World Cup is not for sale.

It is both irresponsible and indefensible that a matter of such gravity for football was conceived behind closed doors and brought close to approval without meaningful discussions with those responsible for the game’s stewardship.

This represents not only a profound failure in leadership but also a dereliction of FIFA’s duty as the guardian of world football.

National associations globally now face an ultimatum: accept the irreversible takeover of football’s premier competitions or confront the consequences. This isn’t a “democratic choice” but coercive governance—an action unworthy of an organization entrusted with the leadership of the global game.

Our objections extend beyond mere procedural issues.

Once external investors obtain ownership interests in FIFA competitions, football will change irrevocably. Commercial returns will become a constant obligation. Investor expectations will dictate everyday decisions. From that point onward, every choice concerning the international calendar, competition formats, and football’s trajectory will be driven not by the sporting spirit but by the interests of shareholders.

As a result of today’s discussions, no UEFA national teams will participate in any FIFA competition for as long as these proposals remain on the table unless this plan is entirely retracted and binding assurances are provided that FIFA will never again entertain private ownership.

Still, the stakes are high: UEFA and its national associations are resolutely opposed to these plans. This inflection point in leadership is critical—some principles are simply too significant to barter away. The FIFA World Cup belongs to football, and as long as Europe has a voice, it will never be for sale.

Adding to the fervor, one of Europe’s largest breweries produced a cheeky retort…

It is heartening to witness Europe unite in opposition to America’s unilateral maneuvers, though it is regrettable that this unity is primarily motivated by preserving the sanctity of football and UEFA’s financial interests—rather than advocating for humanitarian causes like the ongoing conflict in Gaza or the US’s oppressive policies.

Ultimately, UEFA stands on the right side of history this time.

Without Europe’s engagement in the World Cup—across both men’s and women’s categories—and other FIFA events, Infantino’s proposed initiative would significantly diminish its value. This year, Europe produced three of the semi-finalists and six of the eight quarter-finalists. Who would invest in an expanded World Cup devoid of most elite teams?

Furthermore, should it come to that, UEFA has the resources and clout to orchestrate its own alternative version of the World Cup if FIFA pursues this proposal.

Positively, UEFA is not alone in opposing this initiative. Concacaf, the Confederation representing North America, Central America, and the Caribbean, has also dismissed the proposal, instructing its 41 Council Members to engage with FIFA concerning how existing FIFA reserves could enhance funding for football development throughout the region.

In recent developments, the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) joined UEFA and Concacaf in rejecting Infantino’s plans, affirming that a broader consensus is unattainable. As opposition continues to mount, Infantino’s position within FIFA may soon become precarious—arguably the best outcome of this tumultuous World Cup and the Trump and Kushner families’ aspirations to exert control over global football governance.

Notably, Infantino’s senior advisor, Carlos Cordeiro, just resigned in protest over the proposed plan, further compounding Infantino’s challenges.

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a Reply

您的邮箱地址不会被公开。 必填项已用 * 标注

You May Also Like

The Capital Spectator: Insights on Investing, Asset Allocation, and Economics

Iran Conflict Escalation: Saudi Coalition Forms, Egypt Attack Cited as False Flag

The Capital Spectator: Investing, Asset Allocation, and Economic Insights