Uganda has emerged as one of the voices urging football leaders to consider new sources of development funding as FIFA faces growing opposition to a proposal that would allow private investors to acquire a minority stake in the commercial operations behind its major competitions.
FIFA President Gianni Infantino wants the governing body to establish a subsidiary known as FIFA Forward Enterprise. The company would manage commercial and operational activities connected to FIFA events, including the World Cup, while remaining under FIFA’s control.
External investors would be permitted to buy minority, non-controlling interests in the company. FIFA insists the proposal does not amount to selling the World Cup or surrendering control of the sport.
“Nobody is selling football. This is not something FIFA would ever entertain,” the governing body said Friday as it defended the plan and promised to continue consulting its 211 member associations.
The proposal has exposed a widening divide between football’s wealthiest regions and smaller associations that depend on FIFA grants to build facilities, train coaches and support youth competitions.
Rogers Byamukama of the Federation of Uganda Football Associations said countries such as Uganda must consider the potential benefits of any proposal that could bring additional resources into the game.
Football remains expensive to operate in many African countries, he said, with national associations often struggling to generate enough commercial income to finance infrastructure and grassroots development.
In Uganda, FIFA funding has supported football projects and youth programs that might otherwise struggle to attract investment. Byamukama argued that new revenue could help associations across Africa expand the game and provide more opportunities for young players.
“From my perspective, any avenue that brings in more resources is good because those resources would be distributed and given to federations, especially on the African continent, and that would inspire growth,” he told the BBC World Service.
His position reflects the difficult choice facing many smaller football nations. Although concerns about transparency and private influence remain, the possibility of receiving significantly more development funding could be difficult to reject.
Infantino has told member associations they could receive up to $40 million if the proposal is approved. Federations face a Sept. 19 deadline to support the plan if they want access to an initial payment of $20 million.
Critics say the financial offer places unfair pressure on associations to approve a plan whose long-term consequences have not been fully explained.
UEFA, which represents Europe’s 55 national associations, has strongly rejected the proposal and threatened to boycott FIFA competitions if it proceeds. European officials argue that the World Cup is a sporting legacy created by players, supporters and national teams, not an investment product that should be opened to private ownership.
Concacaf, representing 41 associations in North America, Central America and the Caribbean, has also rejected the proposal. It raised concerns about the consultation process, the short deadline and the decision to seek private money while FIFA holds substantial financial reserves.
Together, UEFA and Concacaf account for 96 FIFA members, leaving Infantino with a difficult path toward securing the 106 votes required for majority support.
The Asian Football Confederation has also questioned how the proposal was developed, saying continental bodies were not given sufficient financial, legal or governance information before it became public.
FIFA, however, says no confederation should be allowed to speak for all its members. It maintains that each national association must be given an opportunity to study the proposal and make its own decision. FIFA also says it would permanently own and control the proposed commercial subsidiary.
The debate is particularly significant for African football. Many national associations on the continent do not have the television income, sponsorship deals or established facilities available to their European counterparts.
FIFA’s development program has helped finance stadium improvements, technical centers, women’s football, youth competitions and administrative reforms across the world. For associations with limited domestic revenue, those grants can determine whether basic projects move forward.
That financial reality explains why Infantino continues to enjoy support in parts of Africa, even as opposition grows elsewhere.
The dispute now goes beyond how FIFA raises money. It has become a debate about who controls football’s commercial future, how much influence private investors should have and whether financial incentives are being used to secure political support.
For Uganda and other developing football nations, the central question is equally practical: whether the proposal would deliver lasting investment at the grassroots level or give private interests a foothold in competitions that belong to the global game.
With the September deadline approaching, FIFA must persuade associations that it can increase revenue without weakening its responsibility to protect football. Its opponents, meanwhile, must explain how smaller nations can receive greater support without turning to outside capital.
