Fifa's Revenue Strategy: More Tournaments and Higher Tickets
Fifa’s latest grand plan to turbocharge its revenues hinges on a simple equation: more tournaments, more expensive tickets, and more debt.
That is the blunt message in a 25-page sales deck titled “Fifa Forward Enterprise Member Materials”, seen by the Guardian, which lays out how the governing body wants its 211 member associations to sign off on a sweeping commercial overhaul – including the sale of a fifth of its commercial arm to US investor Joshua Kushner, brother of Jared Kushner.
A new company, a familiar bank
At the heart of the proposal is the creation of a new company to run Fifa’s commercial operations. Twenty per cent of that entity would be sold to Kushner’s group, in a deal structured and pitched by JP Morgan – the same US bank that stood behind the ill‑fated European Super League project five years ago.
The rewards dangled in front of member associations are eye‑catching. Alongside a previously reported $20m sign‑up payment for each of the 211 members – money that could arrive as soon as January – the document projects that Fifa Forward payments will climb to $24m per member in the 2035‑39 cycle.
The route to that growth is spelled out with equal clarity. JP Morgan’s deck points to “a growing tournament portfolio”, “third party sources of capital and debt financing”, and a focus on “high yield” partnerships and events as the levers that will be pulled.
More tournaments, more strain
Buried in the numbers is one of the most striking lines: a reference to more than doubling the number of global tournaments staged each year, from 200 to 450. If realised, that schedule would heap even greater pressure on players already stretched by expanded club and international calendars.
The World Cup itself sits at the centre of the revenue vision. Staging the tournament more frequently remains the most obvious cash generator, with president Gianni Infantino having previously pushed – unsuccessfully – for a biennial World Cup. The sales pitch does not spell out a specific frequency change, but the logic of the model points squarely in that direction.
Broadcast rights are also in the crosshairs. The bank talks of plans to “expand and optimize media rights monetization”, a phrase that opens the door to more of the sport’s biggest events moving behind paywalls, onto subscription channels or streaming platforms, and away from traditional free‑to‑air coverage.
Chasing the US giants
To justify the claim that Fifa is “undermonetized”, JP Morgan leans on comparisons with the financial muscle of major US sports leagues. The deck sets Fifa’s stated annual revenue of $3.6bn against the NFL’s $21.2bn, Major League Baseball’s $13.1bn and the NBA’s $12.5bn.
The contrast is stark, but so is the choice of benchmarks. Those figures are based on club or franchise earnings, not on comparable global governing bodies. That has raised eyebrows among officials who see a fundamental difference between a member‑run federation and closed, privately controlled leagues.
It is not the only point of friction.
Questions, doubts and missing details
The document, circulated to all 211 member associations on Wednesday night, triggered an immediate and sharp reaction. One senior figure questioned why Fifa, sitting on cash reserves of about $4bn and having accumulated $15bn in revenue over the current four‑year cycle, would need to lean on debt at all.
Another highlighted the unusual decision to benchmark a non‑profit governing body against commercial leagues, rather than against organisations with a similar structure and remit.
There is also unease over the speed at which JP Morgan wants to move. According to the timeline in the deck, “Investors will be given access to a term sheet and select materials” in August – before Fifa’s members have even voted on whether to approve the new structure. For some, that reads less like consultation and more like a done deal in waiting.
The identity of the investor group is barely addressed in the document. Beyond the proposed 20% stake and Kushner’s involvement, there is scant detail on who else is backing the bid, what returns they expect, or what their exit terms would be. For an organisation still shadowed by past governance scandals, that lack of transparency is striking.
The glaring omission
Perhaps the most telling absence sits elsewhere. Across 25 pages outlining the future of Fifa’s commercial engine, there is not a single mention of women’s football.
No projections. No strategy. No dedicated products or tournaments referenced in the growth model.
At a time when women’s football is expanding rapidly, drawing record crowds and audiences, its omission from a long‑term financial blueprint will not go unnoticed among member associations and players who have pushed for parity and investment.
Fifa has been approached for comment. The numbers, and the silences, now speak for themselves – and the next move belongs to the 211 associations asked to decide how much of the game’s future they are willing to sell.
