"Had we known what this would devolve into, we would not have gotten involved." That's Josh Kushner, founder of VC firm Thrive Capital, summing up one of the more chaotic episodes in recent football governance — and he's not wrong that it devolved.
The plan, called FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE), would have created a commercial subsidiary holding FIFA's broadcasting, licensing, and ticketing rights. Thrive was lined up as the lead investor in a group that would have put in up to $4.2 billion for roughly 20% of the business — implying a $20 billion valuation. Each member association would have received an immediate $20 million development boost, with more to follow. FIFA would have kept control. Investors would have taken minority, non-controlling stakes.
On paper, the pitch was clean. In practice, it blew up spectacularly.
Why it collapsed — and who's still fighting
Critics hit the plan from multiple directions. Giving private investors a long-term stake in the World Cup's commercial crown jewels — with the expectation of profit — sat badly in a sport where FIFA operates as a nonprofit. UEFA went further, claiming FIFA president Gianni Infantino developed the FFE with a tight circle of advisers and investors while bypassing the FIFA Council, regional confederations, and member associations entirely. CONCACAF and the Asian Football Confederation both rejected it publicly. Even Sepp Blatter — a man who knows a thing or two about controversial FIFA business — was among the loudest critics.
FIFA scrapped the FFE in late July. But the fight hasn't ended. UEFA is now reportedly preparing a criminal complaint in Switzerland against Infantino and other FIFA officials over how the deal was constructed. To build that case, UEFA has been asking U.S. federal courts — in Florida and New York's Southern District — for permission to obtain documents and testimony through discovery.
FIFA is fighting that too, arguing UEFA lacks the authority to initiate such proceedings and is really just trying to protect its own outsized influence over global football. FIFA called it a "smear campaign against it and its leadership."
Where Kushner and Thrive fit into this mess
Thrive has pulled in high-profile lawyer Alex Spiro — the man who has represented Elon Musk, Jay-Z, and Alec Baldwin — though UEFA has been clear that Kushner and Thrive are not themselves suspected of wrongdoing. They're witnesses to the fallout, not architects of the alleged misconduct.
Kushner's defence is straightforward: every member association would have voted on the proposal. "It was an idea that every Member Association would vote on, not an obligation or determination," he said. He also argued the FFE would have pushed money toward "underdeveloped nations" whose football infrastructure has historically been starved of resources while the big European leagues hoover up capital.
That argument has some merit. The concentration of football wealth in a handful of countries is a real and persistent problem. But the process through which this particular solution was pursued — apparently in near-secrecy at the top of FIFA — is exactly what turned a potentially defensible idea into a governance crisis.
Infantino, up for re-election in March 2027, has apologised for how the plan was handled while still defending the underlying concept. Several European associations have pulled their support. African and South American confederations — representing 64 member associations combined — are still backing him. The maths of the FIFA presidency have always favoured those confederations, which is precisely why UEFA is taking this to the courts rather than the ballot box.
The Florida court has already allowed FIFA to intervene against UEFA's discovery request. New York proceedings are paused while Florida weighs the core legal questions. This one is going to run for a while yet.
