FIFA’s decision to abandon plans for outside investment in a stake linked to the World Cup has highlighted a much bigger question facing global sport: who should control the business of the world’s biggest sporting events?
The proposal attracted significant opposition, including warnings of potential boycotts and criticism directed at FIFA president Gianni Infantino. Yet behind the controversy was an unusual group of potential investors and a strategy built around a simple idea — some human experiences may become more valuable, rather than less, as artificial intelligence transforms entertainment.
At the centre of that thinking was Thrive Eternal, an investment vehicle created by Thrive Capital, the New York-based venture capital firm led by Joshua Kushner.
Thrive Capital is heavily involved in technology and has been a major investor in artificial intelligence companies, including OpenAI. Thrive Eternal, launched in April, was established with a different purpose: investing in businesses and institutions whose value is tied to experiences, traditions and cultural identities that technology cannot easily reproduce.
Sport fits naturally into that philosophy.
Football, in particular, offers something that AI cannot manufacture in the same way — a shared experience built around history, national identity, community and live participation. A World Cup match is not simply entertainment consumed on a screen. For billions of supporters, it represents national pride and decades of personal and cultural memories.
That made the possibility of investing in the World Cup particularly attractive.
The proposed vehicle, known as Forward Enterprise, would have involved outside capital and required approval from FIFA’s member associations. Discussions around the proposal reportedly began in 2025, with experienced business figures including Greg Maffei, the former head of Liberty Media, and former Disney chief executive Bob Iger brought into the project as advisers.
Thrive Eternal has already shown an interest in major sports properties. The investment company agreed to acquire a stake in Major League Baseball’s San Francisco Giants and has also reportedly considered opportunities connected to a potential NBA expansion team in Las Vegas.
Its broader investment thesis is that established cultural institutions could become increasingly valuable as artificial intelligence changes other industries.
The logic is straightforward. AI can generate music, films, images and other forms of digital entertainment at increasingly sophisticated levels. But it cannot easily reproduce the emotional significance of supporting a football club, attending a match with thousands of other fans or watching a national team compete on the world’s biggest stage.
That makes elite sport an increasingly attractive asset for investors searching for long-term value.
Professor Simon Chadwick, a veteran sports industry academic who has worked with clubs, supporter organisations and governing bodies including FIFA and UEFA, has warned that the growing influence of private capital is changing where important football decisions are made.
According to Chadwick, commercial decisions surrounding the sport are increasingly being influenced by financial interests based in major investment and technology centres such as Wall Street and Silicon Valley.
The trend is not entirely new.
American investment has become an increasingly important part of European football over the past two decades. The Glazer family’s acquisition of Manchester United was one of the most prominent early examples, followed by growing American ownership and investment across clubs in England and other European leagues.
What makes the FIFA proposal different, however, is the scale and significance of the asset involved.
The World Cup is arguably football’s most valuable global property. FIFA has argued that the competition remains under-monetised, suggesting that its commercial potential has not been fully exploited.
The organisation already generates enormous revenues from broadcasting, sponsorship and ticketing, however, and the 2026 tournament in the United States, Canada and Mexico is expected to establish new financial records.
The expansion of the competition to 48 teams has also created additional commercial opportunities. A larger tournament means more participating nations, larger audiences and additional markets for FIFA and its commercial partners. There has even been discussion of expanding future editions to 64 teams.
That raises an obvious question: if FIFA is already generating record levels of revenue, why does it need external investment?
Christina Philippou, an associate professor specialising in accounting and sport finance at the University of Portsmouth, has argued that FIFA is in a fundamentally different position from sports organisations that turn to investors because they urgently need cash.
FIFA already has substantial financial resources and could potentially increase the amount distributed to its member associations without bringing external investors into the structure.
Supporters of the proposed investment, however, argued that the idea was not simply about giving investors an opportunity to make a quick profit.
The proposed $4.2 billion initial investment was reportedly designed with an unusually long timeframe in mind. Thrive Eternal’s structure as a holding company meant investors could potentially wait decades before expecting returns.
The proposal also had a development argument behind it. Supporters suggested that outside capital could provide FIFA member associations with greater resources for football infrastructure, including stadiums, training facilities and domestic development programmes.
Under the proposed valuation of approximately $20 billion, each member association could potentially have received an equity interest worth as much as $91 million. Importantly, the equity would have remained under FIFA’s control, with individual associations deciding whether to sell their interests.
FIFA presented Forward Enterprise as an attempt to create a clearer separation between the commercial side of football and the governance of the sport.
That distinction is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain.
Football is already a vast global business, with television rights, sponsorships, transfer fees, ticket pricing and club ownership forming an enormous financial ecosystem alongside the sport itself. In major football markets, discussions about finances and boardrooms have become almost as familiar to supporters as conversations about tactics and players.
The failed investment proposal therefore may not represent the end of the story.
Even though FIFA has stepped away from the current plan, the underlying attraction of football to investors remains strong. The sport combines enormous global audiences with something increasingly valuable in a technology-driven economy: experiences that depend on human participation and emotional connection.
For investors looking beyond the next few years, that combination may be difficult to ignore.
The controversy surrounding Forward Enterprise may ultimately serve as a warning about how quickly football’s commercial landscape is changing. Private investment in sport is already established, and major clubs and competitions continue to attract billions in capital.
The question is no longer whether investors will pursue football.
It is how much influence they will eventually have — and where the line between protecting the game and commercialising it should be drawn.
FIFA may have rejected this particular deal, but the financial interest surrounding the World Cup is unlikely to disappear. As artificial intelligence reshapes entertainment and technology continues to dominate investment markets, football’s most valuable asset may be the one thing that cannot be easily automated: the human experience of caring about the game.
