Football Australia breaks silence on FIFA boss’ $40m World Cup shakedown as civil war erupts

Football Australia has broken its silence as governing bodies around the globe have shared their disbelief and outrage at being held to ransom over FIFA’s plans to sell a stake in the business operations of the World Cup and its other competitions to private investors.

FIFA president Gianni Infantino plans to create a semi-private subsidiary called FIFA Forward Enterprise with FIFA holding a majority share, the 211 member nations having a 20 per cent share and 20 to 30 per cent stake sold off to private investors.

Get all the latest football news, highlights and analysis delivered straight to your inbox with Fox Sports Sportmail. Sign up now!!!

The proposal immediately drew backlash from European governing body UEFA over concerns including Infantino personally becoming very wealthy from the plan and FIFA events encroaching on club football as a result of FIFA’s desire to generate more revenue for its investors.

“The soul and governance of football are not assets to trade — especially with zero transparency as to who gains financially. None of us are the owners of football. It is not FIFA’s to sell,” UEFA’s first statement read.

While other confederations were blindsided by the plan, only discovering it by reading The Times’ report that broke on Tuesday.

“We are deeply concerned by the lack of due process,” CONCACAF, which governs North and Central American football and three of whose members, the USA, Canada and Mexico, co-hosted the World Cup, said in a statement.

The Asian Football Confederation also said that they had not been consulted as did England’s Football Association.

“Based on the limited information, we are deeply concerned about the lack of process and governance to get to this point, and the apparent substance and principles involved,” its statement read.

Football Australia decided to be less strong as their peers in releasing statement on Thursday morning that indicated they were still trying to make sense of it all.

“Football Australia can confirm it has received correspondence from FIFA regarding its latest commercial proposal,” the statement read.

“As this is the first time we have been made aware of the initiative, we are now working to understand the proposal in full.

“We have requested further information from FIFA to properly assess the strategic, commercial, and governance implications of such a significant step.

“We will only be able to form a position after receiving this information and engaging in further dialogue with our peer Member Associations and our Confederation.”

MORE FIFA NEWS

FIFA’s $29bn bombshell promises a huge slice for Australia. It could destroy the World Cup

‘Not yours to sell’: WC plunged into turmoil as FIFA ‘nuclear bomb’ set to spark revolt

‘Enormous stain on football’: FIFA boss attacks WC critics in ‘world class tantrum’

The football world’s anger went into overdrive on Wednesday as Infantino adopted mafia-like tactics to try get the tick of approval from member nations for his project – which included US President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner’s company Thrive Capital and bank JP Morgan, who were involved in the failed European Super League five years ago.

The Trump-Infantino connection even drew criticism from former FIFA president Sepp Blatter, who is currently banned from the game due to corruption.

“The close relationship between the FIFA president and the US President (Donald Trump) has reached a financial dimension that is deeply damaging football. No one has the right to sell our game,” Blatter wrote on social media.

While Democrat members of the United States’ congressional House Judiciary Committee also did not mince their words

“Apparently the fake Peace Prize and giant lease with Trump Tower weren’t enough, now Infantino performs a kickback hat trick by pursuing a multibillion-dollar deal with Jared Kushner’s brother to sell ownership stakes in the World Cup to private investors,” their statement read.

Infantino’s original proposal said each country would pocket US$20 million from the scheme.

The 56-year-old Swiss administrator doubled that figure to US$40m – if they sign up to the plan by September 19.

Those who refused would receive US$10m once the plan was brought to life.

According to The Times, FIFA president Gianni Infantino told members that a funding package totalling US$10 billion would become available if they signed up.

Infantino said in a letter seen by the British newspaper that the decision was up to individual associations.

“Should you wish to proceed, this $10 billion package will become available as of January 1, 2027, ushering in the next phase of our journey together,” he wrote.

“Should you wish to retain the status quo and reject this proposal we still have our planned expansion of the Forward program (development funds) of $2.7 billion as previously presented.

“In total for the upcoming cycle starting as of January 1, 2027, each member association will have the possibility of access up to $40 million per member association under this proposal.”

The Times said sources opposed to the plan had labelled it “pure bribery”.

UEFA issued a scathing fresh statement on FIFA’s proposed timescale.

“Today we have learned of FIFA’s deadline to associations to support their proposals or have the one-off payout offer withdrawn,” it said.

“This says everything you need to know about this plan.

“But having held discussions with many stakeholders across the game, UEFA knows there is significant and growing opposition to FIFA’s scheme.

“FIFA cannot continue to use our sport to enrich themselves and their friends. We can grow the game correctly. It’s time to prioritise associations, clubs, leagues, players and fans.”

Infantino tried to dismiss tensions by saying the plan was “an opportunity but not an obligation” for member nations.

“FIFA Forward Enterprise, or FFE, is actually a proposal, an offer. It’s part of a democratic process – a consultation process – and, above all, it is an opportunity but not an obligation,” he said in a video.

“It is a golden opportunity to turbocharge the development of the game globally. But again, it is just an offer, not an obligation.”

Infantino insisted the proposal was centred on unlocking “previously uncaptured commercial value” and was conditional on a democratic vote of FIFA’s 211 member associations and approval by the 38-member FIFA council.

“Capturing that value requires additional expertise, additional insight, distinct from governing and developing the sport,” he said.

“It would simply commercialise and organise all FIFA-owned competitions along with sponsorship, broadcast, licensing and new ventures for the benefit of FIFA’s 211 member associations.”

Infantino said the game would not change and the fans would be happier.

“Fans from everywhere in the world would gain immeasurably from this game-changing potential because it will transform football in their countries,” he said.

Infantino’s words have not been reassuring to outraged figures in Europe.

“Many in European football see FIFA’s plans as an absolute attack on football. I share this view. A line has been crossed here,” Hans-Joachim Watzke, vice-president of the German Football Association (DFB) and Borussia Dortmund president, told magazine Kicker.

“At the World Cup, six European teams reached the quarter-finals and three the semi-finals. If European football stands united against these plans, that carries a great deal of weight.”

UEFA is currently considering a boycott of the World Cup, which would first impact next year’s women’s tournament in Brazil.

Former FA chairman David Bernstein, who once took a public stand against Blatter, told The Telegraph that FIFA’s scheme “stinks” and England and Europe “have to have the guts” to boycott the World Cup.

The widespread view across the continent is that the FFE plan is not fitting of a not-for-profit organisation who is not in deep debt.

“Right now, I get the feeling that FIFA exists solely to make a profit. It feels like the only goal is to rake in money from every possible avenue. I consider myself a child of football – I’ve been involved in the sport for decades – and even I find this disgusting,” Bayern Munich sporting director Max Eberl said.

The European Union have also got involved with the continent’s sports commissioner Glenn Micallef also voicing his anger and concern.

“Hands off our game,” he wrote on social media.

“Particular concern arises when FIFA’s regulatory powers become aligned with the financial interests of private entities.

“When the value of investments depends on decisions made by FIFA. That raises profound questions about governance, independence and conflicts of interest.”

The European nations will now certainly be looking to topple Infantino.

After a decade in the role, he is widely tipped to be re-elected as FIFA boss for a third term.

No one can stay beyond three terms, but Infantino could get an extra long stay courtesy of the circumstances of Blatter’s departure in 2015.

Blatter resigned due to the corruption scandal fives days after being re-elected as FIFA president.

Infantino took over in February 2016 and it means that first term has not officially counted.

He has been tipped to be re-elected because of the added revenue he has brought into the game through the expanded World Cup and Club World Cup.

FIFA recorded a record US$15 billion in profit this World Cup cycle – almost double the previous one – but this new saga might have pushed him over the edge with the federations.

“Infantino is not the solution to FIFA’s governance. He is the problem. We are venturing deeper into the iceberg and what remains to surface,” Javier Tebas, president of the Spanish football league.

While Norwegian FA president Lise Klaveness touched on the years of controversial actions from Infantino that have led to this point.

“The developments of recent days cannot be viewed in isolation,” she said.

“For quite some time now, in many different cases, we have expressed, both internally and externally, our concern about increasingly deficient procedures within FIFA’s leadership, particularly the lack of transparency, the insufficient involvement of the council, and the absence of the necessary distance from heads of state and external stakeholders who are seeking to influence the course of football.”