27 August 2026
The Code-Share Era: Why Sport's Next Growth Market Is Someone Else's Audience
Bayern Munich and the NHL just signed a partnership with no disclosed money in it. That is exactly what makes it interesting.
Read article →Strategy
The debate consuming football this week is the wrong debate.
Whether FIFA is “selling the World Cup” is a political question, useful for press releases and emergency confederation meetings, but analytically thin. The more consequential question is this: what rights does a 20-percent investor in a $20 billion vehicle get to enforce when commercial growth disappoints? The final shareholder agreement, or at least the proposed investor-rights framework, has not been published. Until it is, every confident assertion about governance protection is provisional.
This is not a story about privatisation. It is a story about layer separation, and about what happens when the entity that controls the commercial layer of the world’s most valuable sport hands a contractual stake in that layer to permanent-capital investors with a specific return thesis.
FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE) is a proposed FIFA-owned and controlled subsidiary that would consolidate FIFA’s commercial rights and event operations. It would be established only if a majority of the 211 member associations support it and the FIFA Council grants the necessary approvals, and it would begin operating in 2027 if approved. Under the proposal, FFE would raise up to $4.2 billion later this year to fund development programmes, based on an initial equity valuation of $20 billion, by carefully selecting long-term investors who would purchase minority, non-controlling interests in FFE, with investors acquiring up to approximately 20 percent according to Reuters. FIFA itself describes only “minority, non-controlling interests.”
FIFA says it would retain sole control as well as “exclusive authority” over football governance, competitions, the match calendar and all regulatory and sporting decisions. The commercial layer, covering broadcast revenues, sponsorship, ticketing, and licensing, as well as the delivery of FIFA tournaments, is what investors would be buying into.
The logic is straightforward. FIFA’s member-association governance model, built for regulatory legitimacy across 211 national bodies, is structurally ill-suited to maximising commercial velocity. Decisions that a listed sports property could execute in a board meeting require consensus across confederations, cycles, and political constituencies. By spinning the commercial layer into a separate vehicle, FIFA is attempting to attract institutional capital and expertise without formally ceding the regulatory authority that justifies its existence.
That is not a novel move. It is, in fact, a well-worn playbook.
The closest structural comparables are instructive, and their details matter more than their headlines.
CVC Capital Partners struck a deal to take a one-seventh interest (approximately 14.3 percent) in Six Nations Rugby’s commercial operation, worth up to £365 million, in 2021. The La Liga deal, signed in December 2021, granted the Luxembourg-based private equity firm an approximately 8.2 percent economic interest in the relevant LaLiga commercial vehicle and associated revenues for 50 years in exchange for a cash injection of €1.994 billion. In both cases, the governing body retained formal sporting authority. In both cases, the commercial rights were ring-fenced into a separate vehicle. And in both cases, the minority investor’s return thesis depended entirely on the governing body’s willingness to grow the commercial pie.
New Zealand Rugby’s commercial structure is particularly instructive because it has since been stress-tested. The original 2021 proposal envisaged selling a 12.5 percent stake to California-based Silver Lake Partners for NZ$387.5 million, but that structure was subsequently revised. The final 2022 deal saw Silver Lake invest NZ$200 million initially, potentially rising to NZ$300 million in total through syndication, in exchange for an initial stake of approximately 5.71 percent, within a contemplated range rising to approximately 8.58 percent; after a later capital raise, its reported conversion right rose to approximately 7.6 percent, a right not yet exercised, structured as a perpetual convertible security rather than an immediate equity sale. The structure nevertheless attracted scepticism from those who questioned whether institutional investors could deliver the commercial growth anticipated in a sport as culturally specific and operationally complex as rugby. Whether those concerns have been vindicated requires a separate assessment of NZR CommercialCo’s performance.
The lesson from NZR is not that the structural model fails. It is that the model’s success depends on whether the commercial rights vehicle can actually generate the growth the investor’s return thesis requires. When it cannot, the contractual architecture of the minority stake becomes the arena of conflict.
Table 1: Private equity minority stakes in sports commercial-rights vehicles, selected precedents. Sources: Scottish Daily Mail, March 2021; Forbes, March 2025; Sportico, April 2021; Reuters; New Zealand Rugby.
| Deal | Year | Investor | Stake | Consideration | Structure |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Six Nations Rugby | 2021 | CVC Capital Partners | ~14.3% (one-seventh) | Up to £365m | Commercial rights vehicle |
| La Liga | 2021 | CVC Capital Partners | ~8.2% economic interest | €1.994bn (50-year) | Commercial vehicle & revenues |
| NZ Rugby CommercialCo | 2022 | Silver Lake | 5.71%–8.58% range; ~7.6% conversion right | NZ$200m, up to NZ$300m | Perpetual convertible security |
The funding mechanism FIFA has attached to the proposal deserves close reading, because it is doing structural work that the governance debate tends to obscure.
Central to the proposal is a repositioning of FIFA Forward, FIFA’s flagship development programme, which aims to increase funding per FIFA Member Association from $8 million to $20 million for the 2027-2030 cycle, growing steadily thereafter cycle-on-cycle. The proposal further envisages per-association allocations rising to $22 million for 2031-2034 and $24 million for 2035-2038. Each association could additionally apply for a one-off voluntary allocation of up to $20 million through the FIFA Fast Forward Programme for exceptional infrastructure projects.
The arithmetic is striking. An association that opts into both streams could receive up to $40 million during the 2027-2030 period alone, though the Fast Forward component is optional, one-off and project-based. The optional Fast Forward allocation alone would amount to a theoretical maximum of $4.22 billion if all 211 associations received the full $20 million, almost exactly matching FFE’s proposed capital raise of up to $4.2 billion. Combined with the proposed $20 million in ordinary Forward funding, the theoretical maximum available across both streams during 2027-2030 would be $8.44 billion. The proposed capital raise is almost identical to the theoretical maximum Fast Forward allocation across all 211 associations, creating a clear financial incentive for the membership asked to support the structure.
According to Sky News, in the letter sent to members, Infantino said: “Should neither condition be satisfied, FIFA will continue as planned with the forward programme 4.0, meaning approximately $10 million per member association for the next cycle,” calling it “a singular and unique funding opportunity only for those member associations who wish to participate, with their decision to be made by 19 September 2026.”
That is a deadline, not a consultation. And it has provoked precisely the reaction a deadline without prior engagement tends to produce.
Table 2: FIFA Forward Enterprise, member association funding schedule (proposed). Source: FIFA official announcement, July 28, 2026. One-off Fast Forward allocation is available once across the 2027-2030 cycle only, is optional and project-based. Aggregate figures represent theoretical maximums assuming full opt-in and eligibility.
| Cycle | Base allocation per MA | Optional Fast Forward (one-off, project-based) | Theoretical maximum per MA | Theoretical aggregate (211 MAs, full opt-in) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2027-2030 | $20m | Up to $20m | Up to $40m | Up to $8.44bn |
| 2031-2034 | $22m | , | $22m | $4.642bn |
| 2035-2038 | $24m | , | $24m | $5.064bn |
The confederations of North America, Central America and the Caribbean (CONCACAF) and Asia (AFC) delivered stinging rebukes, saying they learned of FIFA’s equity sale proposal through media reports rather than official channels. The Asian body said it had not been consulted in advance on a matter of such importance. “Decisions that may reshape the commercial and financial future of the game require comprehensive prior engagement with confederations, member associations and other relevant stakeholders before any proposal is made to the appropriate decision-making body(ies),” the AFC said.
UEFA said: “The soul and governance of football are not assets to trade, especially with zero transparency as to who gains financially.”
These objections are legitimate. They are also, in a structural sense, directed at the wrong target.
The formal governance protections FIFA has described, majority board representation, exclusive authority over the match calendar, sole control of regulatory decisions, are legally real. Minority ownership does not confer control. That is not a technicality. It is the entire premise of every CVC deal in rugby and football. In March 2022, a Madrid court rejected interim measures sought by Real Madrid, Barcelona and Athletic Club against the La Liga-CVC structure. The dispute has not ended there: Real Madrid subsequently announced an appeal to Spain’s Supreme Court following a June 2026 appellate decision. The litigation is ongoing.
The risk that has not been addressed publicly is different in kind. It is the risk that minority shareholder protections embedded in the yet-unpublished shareholder agreement could create contractual pressure toward commercial expansion without a single vote being cast. Information rights, consent rights over material changes to the commercial scope of FFE, anti-dilution provisions, performance covenants, drag-along and tag-along clauses: none of these require a board seat to generate leverage. They require only that commercial growth disappoints, and that the investor has the contractual standing to ask why.
This is precisely the dynamic that emerged in the La Liga deal, where Real Madrid argued that the 50-year term and the embedded return expectations created structural pressure on the league’s commercial decisions regardless of CVC’s formal minority status. The court rejected the application for interim measures. The commercial logic of the objection was not entirely wrong.
Former Liberty Media CEO Greg Maffei has been involved as a commercial adviser on the creation of the FIFA enterprise. Thrive Eternal, a new investment strategy launched by venture capital firm Thrive Capital, is expected to be a lead investor in the entity. The strategy is a permanent capital vehicle focused on making a small number of long-term investments in franchises and cultural institutions.
Former Disney CEO Bob Iger has been reported as an adviser to Thrive Eternal.
The Liberty Media reference is not incidental. Liberty Media’s acquisition of Formula One, completed in 2017 at an enterprise value of approximately $8 billion (equity value approximately $4.4 billion), demonstrated how separating a sport’s commercial rights into a professionally managed vehicle, with institutional capital and media-industry expertise at the table, can accelerate global revenue growth at a pace that member-association governance structures cannot match. The 2026 men’s World Cup helped push FIFA’s expected revenue for the full 2023-2026 cycle above $15 billion, according to FIFA’s latest projection. The question Maffei’s involvement implicitly poses is whether FIFA can sustain that trajectory through its existing model, or whether the 2030 World Cup in Spain, Portugal and Morocco will structurally underperform 2026’s North American commercial premium.
The 2026 cycle was a structural outlier: a 48-team tournament staged largely in the world’s largest commercial sports market, with unprecedented ticket and hospitality prices and an expanded inventory of 104 matches. The 2030 cycle will not replicate those conditions. The investor thesis for FFE is, in part, a bet that institutional capital and commercial expertise can bridge that gap by unlocking value across broadcasting, sponsorship, licensing, ticketing and hospitality that FIFA’s current model leaves on the table.
Table 3: FIFA four-year revenue cycles surrounding the men’s World Cup. Sources: FIFA official reports; SportsPro, June 2026; Sports Value analysis. Revenue figures represent full four-year cycle income, not tournament revenue alone.
| Cycle | Revenue (cycle) | Growth |
|---|---|---|
| 2015-2018 | Approximately $6.4bn | , |
| 2019-2022 | Approximately $7.6bn | +$1.2bn (+19%) |
| 2023-2026 | More than $15bn (expected) | , |
| 2027-2030 | To be determined | , |
The Stack Era framing clarifies what is happening here, even if FIFA would not use that language.
Football, like any maturing sports property, is separating into distinct layers: the regulatory layer (governance, rules, calendar, eligibility), the content layer (matches, tournaments, broadcast), and the commercial layer (rights monetisation, sponsorship, licensing, hospitality, data). For most of football’s history, these layers were bundled inside the same institutional structure. The governing body was also the commercial operator. That bundling made governance sense. It made less and less commercial sense as the value of the commercial layer grew.
What FIFA is proposing is to identify the commercial layer, spin it into a vehicle with its own capital structure, and sell a minority interest in that vehicle to investors who can contribute both capital and commercial expertise. The regulatory layer stays inside FIFA. The commercial layer gains a new class of stakeholders with an explicit return thesis.
This is precisely what CVC did in Six Nations Rugby and, in a more complex form, in La Liga. It is what Silver Lake attempted in New Zealand Rugby. The structural move is not new. What is new is the scale: a $20 billion equity valuation for a vehicle controlling the commercial rights of the world’s most watched sport, with 211 member associations as the constituency that must consent.
The question is no longer whether FIFA can attract institutional capital into football’s commercial layer. A source at J.P. Morgan told Reuters that investor demand was “off the charts” even before formal outreach began.
The question is what the investors who provide that capital would be entitled to enforce when the commercial layer underperforms.
The final shareholder agreement for FIFA Forward Enterprise may ultimately become the most important document in this debate. It is not currently in the public domain.
When it is published, or leaked, or litigated into view, the analysis that matters will not be the headline ownership split. It will be the covenants. Specifically: what information rights would minority investors hold over FFE’s commercial performance? What consent would be required for material changes to the scope of the commercial vehicle? What would happen if FFE failed to meet projected revenue targets? Are there provisions that would constrain FIFA’s ability to negotiate commercial deals below a certain threshold, or to expand the tournament calendar in ways that dilute per-event commercial value?
None of these require a board seat. All of them can create pressure.
The La Liga deal is instructive here too. The total CVC investment into the new company holding LaLiga’s commercial rights was €1.994 billion, with CVC holding an approximately 8.2 percent economic interest in the business for 50 years. The 50-year term was not incidental. It was the mechanism by which CVC’s return thesis was protected against short-term governance decisions. The duration of the contractual relationship is the real instrument of influence, not the board representation.
FIFA has not disclosed the proposed term of the FFE investor relationship. It has not disclosed the performance covenants. It has not disclosed the information rights. It has not disclosed the consent thresholds. These are not details. They are the architecture of the deal.
The confederations objecting to FIFA Forward Enterprise are objecting to the process, and they are right to do so. But the deeper objection, the one that will matter in five years rather than five weeks, is structural. It is about what a minority investor in a $20 billion commercial vehicle would be contractually entitled to do when the commercial layer they have bought into stops growing at the rate their return thesis requires.
That question has not been answered. It has not even been properly asked.
When the shareholder agreement for FIFA Forward Enterprise is finally published, will the minority investor protections it contains look more like a passive financial instrument, or like the contractual architecture of a partner with a seat at the commercial table?
A. Strulak writes on sports business, commercial strategy and the economics of rights. Vinciamo Sports, Sport. Reimagined.
More Insight
Bayern Munich and the NHL just signed a partnership with no disclosed money in it. That is exactly what makes it interesting.
Read article →Talent is rarely the scarce resource in sport. The system capable of finding, developing and retaining it usually is.
Read article →Why a century of accumulated meaning is becoming football's scarcest commercial asset, and how one club is building that asset from scratch.
Read article →