Authored By: Aliya Khan
Newcastle University
I. Introduction
UEFA’s conditional boycott of FIFA competitions exposed a basic tension in global football governance: FIFA controlled the World Cup’s principal commercial rights, but not all the institutions and political conditions that gave those rights value.
The dispute arose on 28 July 2026, when FIFA announced FIFA Forward Enterprise (‘FFE’), a proposed FIFA-owned subsidiary combining broadcasting, sponsorship, ticketing and licensing rights with tournament delivery. FFE was intended to raise up to US$4.2 billion from long-term investors at an implied equity valuation of US$20 billion. FIFA described the investment as minority and non-controlling.[1] Reuters reported that investors could acquire up to 20 per cent.[2] On 30 July, UEFA and its 55 associations unanimously declared that their national teams would not participate in FIFA competitions while the proposal remained alive.[3] FIFA withdrew it the following evening.[4]
The significance of the episode lies not in the attempted creation of FFE alone, but in the forces that halted it. UEFA had no formal veto over FIFA’s commercial decisions, yet its refusal to participate made the proposal commercially untenable. This article argues that the controversy revealed a structural constraint on FIFA’s commercial autonomy: legal ownership of World Cup rights does not equate to full control over their economic realisation. Private investment was not inherently incompatible with FIFA’s functions, but the absence of disclosed investor rights, transparent valuation and formal consultation prevented members from assessing whether FFE represented efficient capitalisation or an opaque transfer of long-term commercial value. The analysis moves from FIFA’s constitutional structure and the commercial architecture of the 2026 tournament to UEFA’s leverage, host-state dependence, investor selection and the counterargument for private capital.
II. Legal and Institutional Framework
A. FIFA’s Status and Allocation of Authority
FIFA is an association governed by Swiss law, not a state regulator or ordinary shareholder-owned company. Articles 60-79 of the Swiss Civil Code provide the association-law framework, while the FIFA Statutes divide authority among its organs. Congress is the supreme legislative body; the Council sets strategy and exercises oversight; and the general secretariat negotiates commercial contracts under Council standards.[5] FIFA’s resources must support statutory objectives, including international competitions and football development, and its finances operate across four-year cycles.[6]
These are private association rules, not legislation. They remain subject to Swiss law, applicable competition rules and contract. That distinction matters because FIFA regulates global football while commercially exploiting its most valuable competition.
UEFA is also a Swiss association. Its Statutes state that sporting values should prevail over commercial interests, promote European solidarity and recognise UEFA’s place within FIFA’s confederal system.[7] Its boycott did not amend FIFA’s rules or automatically release associations from their obligations. Its force came from coordinated refusal to participate.
B. Commercial Separation and the Reallocation of Institutional Power
FIFA’s commercial rights cannot be analysed as ordinary corporate assets because, within its constitutional structure, they are inseparable from regulatory authority. Broadcasting, sponsorship and tournament rights derive their value from FIFA’s power to organise competitions, determine eligibility and coordinate member participation.[8] The same institutional authority that governs the sport therefore produces the commercial revenue base.
FFE could have introduced a corporate decision-making layer within FIFA’s association structure. Even if FIFA retained formal control, the commercialisation of regulatory outputs would have been mediated through a vehicle governed by company law alongside FIFA’s existing association-law framework. Investor protections over budgets, borrowing, licensing or major transactions would not need to alter sporting rules directly to affect institutional behaviour; they would operate where regulatory decisions were converted into distributable value.[9] FFE therefore risked shifting FIFA from exclusively member-driven governance towards investor-sensitive financial management. The constitutional concern was not simply who held a majority of votes, but whether enforceable investor rights could restrict how revenues produced through member participation were used, distributed or reinvested.
FIFA’s assurance that it would retain authority over governance, competitions and the calendar addressed only part of that concern.[10] Without a published constitution, shareholders’ agreement, reserved-matters schedule or dividend policy, members could not determine whether investor protections merely safeguarded capital or constrained FIFA’s discretion over revenues generated through their participation. ‘Non-control’ described the intended voting position, but not how investor rights would interact with Congress, the Council and member associations.
III. The Commercial Architecture of the 2026 World Cup
A. Rights, Revenue and Expansion
The completed 2026 World Cup demonstrated the scale of the proposed asset. Its expansion to 48 teams and 104 matches across 16 cities increased broadcasting hours, sponsorship exposure, ticket inventory and hospitality capacity, FIFA reported cumulative attendance above 6.8 million.[11] It also reported more than 607,000 hospitality packages sold or allocated by the round of 16.[12]
These figures are not profits, but they show how FIFA’s regulatory authority creates commercial inventory. Expanding the tournament was formally a sporting decision, yet it simultaneously increased the products available to broadcasters, sponsors and hospitality providers – competition structure and revenue structure were therefore inseparable.
FIFA’s revised budget projected US$13 billion in revenue for the 2023-2026 cycle.[13] That is a cycle-wide forecast, not annual income or World Cup profit. Legal exclusivity protects television, marketing, licensing, ticketing and hospitality income, but cannot generate demand alone. A tournament without leading teams would retain its trademarks while losing much of the competitive and audience value attached to them. The proposed asset was therefore a bundle of intellectual property, contracts, participation and legitimacy.
B. Public Support and Private Commercial Value
The World Cup’s commercial value was not created by FIFA alone. Canada’s Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated C$1.066 billion in government support for 13 matches.[14] FEMA allocated US$625 million to security and preparedness across 11 United States host cities.[15] These commitments enabled the revenues FIFA proposed to place within FFE, while much of the expenditure and operational risk remained with public authorities.
That asymmetry does not prove that host states received no benefit or that private investment was illegitimate. It shows that FFE’s valuation captured expected FIFA cash flows without internalising all the public costs required to produce them. In effect, the proposed vehicle would have converted revenue from a public–private delivery system into a privately investable claim, while leaving important delivery risks outside the subsidiary. Research identifies optimistic forecasting as a recurring weakness in ex ante mega-event studies.[16] A longitudinal study finding that costs exceeded revenues in more than four-fifths of the events examined reinforces the need to distinguish FIFA income, gross economic activity and net host benefit.[17]
The proposal therefore raised a distributional issue. FIFA sought to sell an interest in value partly produced and underwritten by institutions outside its ownership structure. The transaction could not be assessed solely through FIFA’s contracts and projected revenue; its value also depended on governments and associations continuing to support the product.
IV. UEFA’s Conditional Boycott as Commercial Leverage
UEFA’s threat exposed the difference between FIFA’s legal ownership of World Cup rights and its practical control over their value. FIFA could retain the trademarks, broadcasting contracts and tournament structure, yet those assets would be materially weakened if leading European associations withheld their teams. Participation was therefore not merely an operational input, it functioned as commercial leverage capable of constraining FIFA’s decisions.
This mattered because FFE was presented as a vehicle for monetising rights already controlled by FIFA. The boycott showed that those rights were not economically self-contained, their value depended on associations that FIFA did not own and could not replace without reducing the competition’s quality and credibility.
FIFA’s rapid withdrawal illustrates how UEFA’s collective stance constrained a commercial strategy dependent on broad participation.[18] Although UEFA lacked a formal approval right, the credible threat of non-participation made the proposed transaction commercially vulnerable. Its leverage was not absolute: European associations would also have incurred serious sporting and financial costs from prolonged withdrawal. Even so, formal subordination did not eliminate bargaining power where commercial dependence ran in the opposite direction. The episode therefore inverted the formal hierarchy: FIFA remained the global regulator, but UEFA acquired a de facto commercial veto because the proposed asset could not retain its valuation without European participation. FIFA owned the rights; UEFA possessed the capacity to impair the product to which those rights related.
V. Political Dependence and Governance Legitimacy
A. Dependence on Host Governments
The 2026 tournament also demonstrated FIFA’s dependence on states. United States visa restrictions forced Iran to relocate its base from Arizona to Tijuana; 15 federation members were denied visas and players received visas shortly before the opening match, while FIFA acknowledged that it could not dictate the host state’s immigration decisions.[19]
The incident mattered because government action altered the conditions under which a qualified team could prepare and compete. FIFA could organise and commercialise the tournament but could not guarantee that the host government would enable participation on equal or workable terms. This did not make FFE unviable, it reinforced the weakness exposed by UEFA: FIFA proposed to monetise revenues whose underlying conditions it could not independently secure.
B. Investor Selection and Institutional Legitimacy
FIFA identified Thrive Eternal as the expected lead investor and stated that investors would be selected according to long-term, governance and strategic criteria.[20] It did not publicly explain how Thrive had been chosen, whether competing proposals had been assessed or what independent conflict review had occurred.
Thrive Eternal’s proposed role heightened concerns about FIFA’s opaque investor-selection process. Its founder, Joshua Kushner, is the brother of Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law.[21] These connections did not prove impropriety, but they made transparent selection criteria and independent conflict review more important.
A transaction involving the World Cup’s principal commercial rights required demonstrable procedural independence. Research on international sports organisations links legitimacy to transparency, checks on executive discretion and meaningful stakeholder participation.[22] Without disclosed selection criteria, competitive testing and independent review, associations could not determine whether FFE reflected collective institutional interests or executive preference.
This gave UEFA’s opposition a governance basis extending beyond hostility to private capital. The Associated Press later reported that UEFA required the preservation of relevant documents while considering legal, arbitral or regulatory action.[23] Withdrawal ended the transaction, but not the dispute over how FIFA had exercised its institutional authority.
VI. The Case for Private Investment
The defects in FIFA’s process did not establish that private investment was inherently incompatible with its functions. FFE could have supplied immediate capital, specialist commercial expertise and investment in media distribution and infrastructure. FIFA also proposed increasing baseline Forward funding from US$8 million to US$20 million per association for 2027-2030, with an optional additional allocation of up to US$20 million.[24] For smaller associations, earlier capital could produce greater developmental value than uncertain future distributions. Nor would minority ownership necessarily have transferred sporting control. Properly limited investor rights could protect capital while leaving competitions, calendars, integrity rules and development allocations with FIFA.
The stronger question was whether those benefits justified sharing part of FIFA’s future commercial returns with external investors. FIFA’s substantial projected cycle revenue did not prove that equity financing was unnecessary but made its necessity contestable. FIFA published no independent valuation or comparison with borrowing, retained earnings, licensing reform or a wholly owned subsidiary.
External equity would also introduce return expectations, investors might pursue growth through sponsorship expansion, media-rights optimisation, higher pricing or additional commercial inventory, even without formal power over sporting rules.[25] The risk was less direct regulatory capture than gradual alignment of FIFA’s incentives with investor returns. FIFA’s sporting authority determines tournament format and commercial inventory, economic influence could matter without legal control.
None of this could be evaluated adequately from the information disclosed. Without investor rights, valuation methodology or financing alternatives, members could not assess whether US$4.2 billion justified dilution of future revenues and the accompanying governance risks. UEFA’s resistance did not prove that private capital had no legitimate role; it showed that FIFA had not supplied the information needed to distinguish beneficial investment from an inadequately governed transfer of commercial value.
VII. Conclusion
The FFE dispute exposed a structural dependency within FIFA’s governance model, not an insurmountable incompatibility between private investment and football governance. A controlled subsidiary could improve management and supply capital without transferring formal sporting authority.
The proposal failed because ownership did not resolve dependence. FIFA held the intellectual property and central contracts, but associations supplied the teams and players giving those rights value. Host governments supplied borders, security and infrastructure; broadcasters, sponsors and supporters supplied revenue and legitimacy. UEFA’s conditional boycott converted that dependence into bargaining power and exposed the contingency of FFE’s valuation.
Any renewed proposal should be independently valued, competitively tendered and published before approval. Member consultation should precede investor selection; investor vetoes should be confined to genuine capital-protection matters; and sporting rules, calendars, integrity decisions and development allocations should remain insulated. Independent conflict review, recusal duties and transparent reporting are equally necessary.
FIFA’s most valuable asset is not intellectual property in isolation. It is a cooperative system capable of producing a credible world championship. Governance safeguards are therefore not external restraints on commercial value; they are part of the asset being valued.
Word Count
2,185 words, including headings, title but excluding the footnotes and bibliography.
Bibliography
A. Primary Sources
Legislation
Swiss Civil Code of 10 December 1907 (SR 210) <https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/24/233_245_233/en> accessed 4 August 2026
FIFA and UEFA Documents
FIFA, FIFA Statutes: Regulations Governing the Application of the Statutes and Standing Orders of the Congress (May 2024) <https://digitalhub.fifa.com/m/16d1f7349fa19ade/original/FIFA-Statutes-2024.pdf> accessed 4 August 2026
FIFA, ‘FIFA intends to expand football development funding to over USD 10 billion subject to approval by FIFA Member Associations’ (FIFA, 28 July 2026) <https://inside.fifa.com/organisation/media-releases/intends-expand-football-development-funding-usd-10-billion-subject-approval-member-associations> accessed 4 August 2026
FIFA, ‘FIFA World Cup 2026 by the numbers: inside the unprecedented operation behind the biggest sporting event in history’ (FIFA, 27 July 2026) <https://inside.fifa.com/organisation/media-releases/world-cup-2026-numbers-unprecedented-operation-behind-biggest-sporting-event-history> accessed 4 August 2026
FIFA, ‘From packed stadiums to record digital reach: FIFA World Cup 2026 numbers tell story of unprecedented scale as last eight confirmed’ (FIFA, 8 July 2026) <https://inside.fifa.com/organisation/media-releases/packed-stadiums-record-digital-reach-world-cup-2026-numbers-unprecedented-scale> accessed 4 August 2026
FIFA, ‘Revised budget 2023–2026’ (FIFA Annual Report 2024) <https://inside.fifa.com/official-documents/annual-report/2024/financials/revised-2023-2026-budget> accessed 4 August 2026
FIFA, ‘Statement attributable to the FIFA President’ (FIFA, 31 July 2026) <https://inside.fifa.com/organisation/media-releases/statement-attributable-president> accessed 4 August 2026
UEFA, ‘Statement on behalf of UEFA and its 55 national associations’ (UEFA, 30 July 2026) <https://www.uefa.com/news-media/news/02a7-213a92896eb0-54dfbf454e3b-1000–statement-on-behalf-of-uefa-and-its-55-national-associations/> accessed 4 August 2026
UEFA, UEFA Statutes, Rules of Procedure of the UEFA Congress and Regulations Governing the Implementation of the UEFA Statutes: Edition 2026 (2026) <https://documents.uefa.com/api/khub/documents/IlGBLZF3V6eIeS37uewXLA/content> accessed 4 August 2026
Government and Public-Authority Materials
Cabral J and Vrhovsek Z, Federal Financial Support for the 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup (Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, 20 May 2026) <https://www.pbo-dpb.ca/en/publications/NT-2627-007-S–federal-financial-support-2026-fifa-men-world-cup–aide-financiere-federale-coupe-monde-masculine-fifa-2026> accessed 4 August 2026
Federal Emergency Management Agency, ‘FIFA World Cup Grant Program’ (FEMA, 2 June 2026) <https://www.fema.gov/grants/preparedness/fifa-world-cup-grant-program> accessed 4 August 2026
B. Secondary Sources
Books and Chapters
Armour J, Hansmann H and Kraakman R, ‘Agency Problems and Legal Strategies’ in Reinier Kraakman and others, The Anatomy of Corporate Law: A Comparative and Functional Approach (3rd edn, OUP 2017)
Journal Articles
Baade RA and Matheson VA, ‘Going for the Gold: The Economics of the Olympics’ (2016) 30(2) Journal of Economic Perspectives 201 <https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.30.2.201> accessed 4 August 2026
Barclay J, ‘Predicting the Costs and Benefits of Mega-Sporting Events: Misjudgement of Olympic Proportions?’ (2009) 29(2) Economic Affairs 62 <https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0270.2009.01896.x> accessed 4 August 2026
Geeraert A, Alm J and Groll M, ‘Good Governance in International Sport Organizations: An Analysis of the 35 Olympic Sport Governing Bodies’ (2014) 6(3) International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 281 <https://doi.org/10.1080/19406940.2013.825874> accessed 4 August 2026
Müller M, Gogishvili D and Wolfe SD, ‘The Structural Deficit of the Olympics and the World Cup: Comparing Costs against Revenues over Time’ (2022) 54(6) Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 1200 <https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X221098741> accessed 4 August 2026
Pielke R Jr, ‘How Can FIFA Be Held Accountable?’ (2013) 16(3) Sport Management Review 255 <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2012.12.007> accessed 4 August 2026
Expert Legal Commentary
Hudson G, ‘Playing the Long Game: A Guide to Minority Sports Investments’ (Charles Russell Speechlys, 26 March 2026) <https://www.charlesrussellspeechlys.com/en/insights/expert-insights/corporate/2026/playing-the-long-game-a-guide-to-minority-sports-investments/> accessed 4 August 2026
News Sources
Dunbar G, ‘European soccer body UEFA warns FIFA of legal action over Infantino’s failed World Cup sell-off plan’ Associated Press (Nyon, 3 August 2026) <https://apnews.com/article/world-cup-fifa-infantino-uefa-legal-de560598ef25affea0267dd568f7c431> accessed 4 August 2026
Green E, ‘Iran team chief slams FIFA’s “lack of coordination” on visa issues’ Reuters (Mexico City, 12 June 2026) <https://www.reuters.com/sports/soccer/iran-team-chief-slams-fifas-lack-coordination-visa-issues-2026-06-12/> accessed 4 August 2026
Holland S and Erickson B, ‘Trump says he never spoke to FIFA leader about sale’ Reuters (Camp David, 31 July 2026) <https://www.reuters.com/sports/soccer/trump-says-he-never-spoke-fifa-leader-about-sale-2026-07-31/> accessed 4 August 2026
Wang E and Nair R, ‘FIFA plans to sell stakes in $20 billion subsidiary to run World Cup, angering UEFA’ Reuters (28 July 2026) <https://www.reuters.com/sports/soccer/fifa-mulls-stake-sale-through-new-20-billion-entity-source-says-2026-07-28/> accessed 4 August 2026
[1]FIFA, ‘FIFA intends to expand football development funding to over USD 10 billion subject to approval by FIFA Member Associations’ (FIFA, 28 July 2026) <https://inside.fifa.com/organisation/media-releases/intends-expand-football-development-funding-usd-10-billion-subject-approval-member-associations> accessed 4 August 2026.
[2]Echo Wang and Rohith Nair, ‘FIFA plans to sell stakes in $20 billion subsidiary to run World Cup, angering UEFA’ Reuters (28 July 2026) <https://www.reuters.com/sports/soccer/fifa-mulls-stake-sale-through-new-20-billion-entity-source-says-2026-07-28/> accessed 4 August 2026.
[3]UEFA, ‘Statement on behalf of UEFA and its 55 national associations’ (UEFA, 30 July 2026) <https://www.uefa.com/news-media/news/02a7-213a92896eb0-54dfbf454e3b-1000–statement-on-behalf-of-uefa-and-its-55-national-associations/> accessed 4 August 2026.
[4]FIFA, ‘Statement attributable to the FIFA President’ (FIFA, 31 July 2026) <https://inside.fifa.com/organisation/media-releases/statement-attributable-president> accessed 4 August 2026.
[5]Swiss Civil Code of 10 December 1907 (SR 210) arts 60–79 <https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/24/233_245_233/en> accessed 4 August 2026; FIFA, FIFA Statutes: Regulations Governing the Application of the Statutes and Standing Orders of the Congress (May 2024) arts 1, 24–25, 34 and 36 <https://digitalhub.fifa.com/m/16d1f7349fa19ade/original/FIFA-Statutes-2024.pdf> accessed 4 August 2026.
[6]FIFA, FIFA Statutes (n 5) arts 2 and 54.
[7]UEFA, UEFA Statutes, Rules of Procedure of the UEFA Congress and Regulations Governing the Implementation of the UEFA Statutes: Edition 2026 (2026) arts 1, 2(1)(f)–(n) and 3 <https://documents.uefa.com/api/khub/documents/IlGBLZF3V6eIeS37uewXLA/content> accessed 4 August 2026.
[8]FIFA, FIFA Statutes (n 5) arts 2(b)–(d), 13(1)(e), 14(1)(b), 34(10), 59 and 62.
[9]Grace Hudson, ‘Playing the Long Game: A Guide to Minority Sports Investments’ (Charles Russell Speechlys, 26 March 2026) <https://www.charlesrussellspeechlys.com/en/insights/expert-insights/corporate/2026/playing-the-long-game-a-guide-to-minority-sports-investments/> accessed 4 August 2026.
[10]FIFA, ‘FIFA intends to expand football development funding’ (n 1).
[11]FIFA, ‘FIFA World Cup 2026 by the numbers: inside the unprecedented operation behind the biggest sporting event in history’ (FIFA, 27 July 2026) <https://inside.fifa.com/organisation/media-releases/world-cup-2026-numbers-unprecedented-operation-behind-biggest-sporting-event-history> accessed 4 August 2026.
[12]FIFA, ‘From packed stadiums to record digital reach: FIFA World Cup 2026 numbers tell story of unprecedented scale as last eight confirmed’ (FIFA, 8 July 2026) <https://inside.fifa.com/organisation/media-releases/packed-stadiums-record-digital-reach-world-cup-2026-numbers-unprecedented-scale> accessed 4 August 2026.
[13]FIFA, ‘Revised budget 2023–2026’ (FIFA Annual Report 2024) <https://inside.fifa.com/official-documents/annual-report/2024/financials/revised-2023-2026-budget> accessed 4 August 2026.
[14]James Cabral and Zachary Vrhovsek, Federal Financial Support for the 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup (Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, 20 May 2026) <https://www.pbo-dpb.ca/en/publications/NT-2627-007-S–federal-financial-support-2026-fifa-men-world-cup–aide-financiere-federale-coupe-monde-masculine-fifa-2026> accessed 4 August 2026.
[15]Federal Emergency Management Agency, ‘FIFA World Cup Grant Program’ (FEMA, 2 June 2026) <https://www.fema.gov/grants/preparedness/fifa-world-cup-grant-program> accessed 4 August 2026.
[16]Jonathan Barclay, ‘Predicting the Costs and Benefits of Mega-Sporting Events: Misjudgement of Olympic Proportions?’ (2009) 29(2) Economic Affairs 62, 62–66 <https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0270.2009.01896.x> accessed 4 August 2026; Robert A Baade and Victor A Matheson, ‘Going for the Gold: The Economics of the Olympics’ (2016) 30(2) Journal of Economic Perspectives 201, 205–14 <https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.30.2.201> accessed 4 August 2026.
[17]Martin Müller, David Gogishvili and Sven Daniel Wolfe, ‘The Structural Deficit of the Olympics and the World Cup: Comparing Costs against Revenues over Time’ (2022) 54(6) Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 1200, 1200–03 <https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X221098741> accessed 4 August 2026.
[18]UEFA, ‘Statement on behalf of UEFA and its 55 national associations’ (n 3); FIFA, ‘Statement attributable to the FIFA President’ (n 4).
[19]Emily Green, ‘Iran team chief slams FIFA’s “lack of coordination” on visa issues’ Reuters (Mexico City, 12 June 2026) <https://www.reuters.com/sports/soccer/iran-team-chief-slams-fifas-lack-coordination-visa-issues-2026-06-12/> accessed 4 August 2026.
[20]FIFA, ‘FIFA intends to expand football development funding’ (n 1).
[21]Wang and Nair (n 2); Steve Holland and Bo Erickson, ‘Trump says he never spoke to FIFA leader about sale’ Reuters (Camp David, 31 July 2026) <https://www.reuters.com/sports/soccer/trump-says-he-never-spoke-fifa-leader-about-sale-2026-07-31/> accessed 4 August 2026.
[22]Arnout Geeraert, Jens Alm and Michael Groll, ‘Good Governance in International Sport Organizations: An Analysis of the 35 Olympic Sport Governing Bodies’ (2014) 6(3) International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 281, 282–88 <https://doi.org/10.1080/19406940.2013.825874> accessed 4 August 2026; Roger Pielke Jr, ‘How Can FIFA Be Held Accountable?’ (2013) 16(3) Sport Management Review 255, 255–67 <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2012.12.007> accessed 4 August 2026.
[23]Graham Dunbar, ‘European soccer body UEFA warns FIFA of legal action over Infantino’s failed World Cup sell-off plan’ Associated Press (Nyon, 3 August 2026) <https://apnews.com/article/world-cup-fifa-infantino-uefa-legal-de560598ef25affea0267dd568f7c431> accessed 4 August 2026.
[24]FIFA, ‘FIFA intends to expand football development funding’ (n 1).
[25]John Armour, Henry Hansmann and Reinier Kraakman, ‘Agency Problems and Legal Strategies’ in Reinier Kraakman and others, The Anatomy of Corporate Law: A Comparative and Functional Approach (3rd edn, OUP 2017) 29–48; Hudson (n 9).
