FIFA’s commercial investment plan sparks debate across African football

The Confederation of African Football (CAF) has come under criticism over what some football stakeholders describe as a cautious response to FIFA’s controversial proposal to establish a commercial subsidiary to manage its major competitions and sell minority stakes to external investors.

Earlier this week, CAF said that its Executive Committee will meet next week to assess and evaluate the proposed FIFA Forward Enterprise initiative, following correspondence received from FIFA as part of an ongoing consultation process involving FIFA member associations and the FIFA Council.

The announcement has, however, drawn a sharp reaction from Malawi football commentator George Chiusiwa, who described CAF’s statement as “very soft” and lacking a clear position on the governance concerns surrounding the proposal.

Chiusiwa argued that FIFA has already advanced the initiative and is now seeking formal approval from its 211 member associations, with financial incentives potentially influencing their decisions.

“Unsurprising and as anticipated. A very soft statement from CAF that is only loaded with some sugarcoated political correctness,” Chiusiwa said.

He questioned why CAF was only now referring to consultations, arguing that major decisions concerning the proposed investment structure should have involved transparent and meaningful engagement with member associations from the outset.

Chiusiwa also criticised CAF for failing to publicly express concern or disappointment over the way the process has unfolded, saying African football’s governing body should take a clearer position on the proposal and its potential implications.

He further claimed that some football confederations had learned about FIFA’s proposal through the media rather than official communication channels, raising concerns about transparency and governance.

“Apparently, the FIFA engineered clandestine undertakings and dealings have already taken place with concrete proposals mooted, waiting for plastic and superficial approval from Member Associations,” he said.

Chiusiwa said concerns raised by other football confederations, including UEFA, the Asian Football Confederation and CONCACAF, deserved serious consideration because of questions surrounding due process, stakeholder consultation and the legal and financial implications of the proposed structure.

The debate comes as FIFA seeks to create a subsidiary to manage the commercial interests of its major competitions and offer external investors stakes of up to 20%.

The proposal has generated opposition in parts of the global football community, with critics arguing that the restructuring could fundamentally alter the governance and commercial control of FIFA’s biggest events.

However, Football Association of Malawi (FAM) President Fleetwood Haiya has expressed support for FIFA’s plan, arguing that private-sector involvement could strengthen the commercial management of football and unlock additional resources for development.

Speaking to BBC Newsday, Haiya said FIFA should have adopted such an approach earlier, comparing the proposed model to FAM’s efforts to identify private companies to manage some of its commercial interests, including Mpira Hotel and Restaurant.

Haiya also welcomed the financial incentives linked to the proposal, saying additional resources could help Malawi address its infrastructure deficit.

According to the information provided, FIFA has set a 19 September 2026 deadline for its 211 member associations to approve the proposed private investment plan, with each association potentially accessing up to USD40 million, equivalent to about K69.3 billion.

Haiya said such funding would provide an opportunity to improve football infrastructure in Malawi, including the construction and renovation of modern stadiums.

He argued that the government alone cannot be expected to finance major football infrastructure projects because public resources must also be directed toward critical sectors such as health and agriculture.

“We need new and modern stadiums, but that cannot be the duty of government alone,” Haiya said, according to the account of his interview.

The contrasting positions from Chiusiwa and Haiya reflect a broader debate over the proposed FIFA investment model: whether it represents a major opportunity to inject new money into football development or poses risks to transparency, governance and the independence of the sport’s global institutions.

While CAF has encouraged its member associations to study the FIFA Forward Enterprise proposal and participate in the consultation process, it has not publicly taken a definitive position on the merits or risks of the plan.

CAF said it remains committed to consulting and working with its member associations, FIFA, other football confederations and stakeholders to increase financial and other resources for the development and growth of football in Africa and worldwide.

For African football, the upcoming consultations could therefore prove significant, particularly as member associations weigh the potential financial benefits against concerns over governance, transparency and the long-term control of the game’s most valuable competitions.