Proposals spearheaded by FIFA president Gianni Infantino to divest shares in key tournaments such as the World Cup have been decisively dismissed by top football organizations. FIFA attempted to mirror the commercial strategies that saw Formula 1 flourish under Liberty Media’s ownership since 2017. UEFA and CONCACAF, however, have resisted, insisting such moves could undermine the heart and soul of the sport. FIFA made an extraordinary $15 billion from the 2026 World Cup, a figure that many would argue is already substantial. However, the governing body’s leadership saw opportunity in further monetizing the sport, a strategy that echoes the path Formula 1 has been forced down by Liberty Media's takeover.
Infantino’s initiative gained momentum against the backdrop of the 2026 World Cup, which generated a staggering $15 billion in revenue. Yet, this success apparently wasn’t enough for FIFA’s leadership. The proposed divestment aimed to inject new capital, especially from American investor groups, drawing clear parallels with the forces that reshaped Formula 1 into a profit-centric brand. UEFA and CONCACAF’s rejection of this plan is a direct response to prevent football from following the same commercial trajectory that saw Formula 1 abandon its racing heritage in favor of spectacle and shareholder value. The 2026 World Cup, despite its success, was marked by water breaks used as excuses for advertisements and a half-time show that drew more attention for its glitz than the match itself.
Formula 1's Commercial Shift
Since Liberty Media took control of Formula 1 in 2017, the sport has shifted dramatically toward entertainment and profit maximization. Traditional race circuits have been replaced by high-visibility events in cities like Las Vegas and in countries such as Qatar. FIFA’s 2026 World Cup echoed these trends with staged hydration breaks and extravagant half-time shows designed to attract advertisers. The push-to-pass cars, while technologically impressive, have drawn criticism for their reliance on battery power and the artificial nature of overtaking. This shift from authenticity to spectacle is emblematic of a broader trend that could affect football if FIFA were allowed to pursue its proposed changes.
This commercial evolution of Formula 1 has come at the expense of authentic racing. Drivers no longer push their machines to the limit on every lap. Instead, paddock access is frequently given to social media influencers who use the platform to promote high-end fashion and lifestyle products. The focus has increasingly shifted from fan engagement to algorithm satisfaction, diluting the essence of the sport. The comparison between FIFA’s proposed changes and Formula 1’s shift is not lost on fans and critics. Both have seen a transformation that prioritizes content and sponsorship over the fundamental values of the game. FIFA’s 2026 World Cup also saw these elements, further reinforcing the concerns that led UEFA and CONCACAF to reject Infantino’s plans.
FIFA's Dismissed Proposal and Stakeholder Exclusion
Infantino’s plan to sell shares in FIFA tournaments was implemented without engaging key stakeholders. UEFA and CONCACAF were excluded entirely, and subsequent statements from senior FIFA figures suggested they were unaware of the proposal. This lack of transparency raises serious governance concerns. The scenario closely mirrors how Formula 1 is currently overseen by Stefano Domenicali, where rule changes are often inconsistent, and critics are dismissed as being divisive. Domenicali’s handling of recent regulations, such as the push-to-pass systems, has been met with skepticism from fans and drivers alike. FIFA’s decision to proceed with its proposal without consultation has drawn comparisons to the opaque practices in Formula 1 governance. This lack of transparency has further eroded the trust of football fans who feel their sport is being sold out to the highest bidder.
The hidden nature of FIFA’s proposed deal amplifies the similarities with Formula 1’s current trajectory. The same investors appear to be involved, the same emphasis on spectacle and glamor is evident, and the same disregard for the traditional values of the sport remains a pressing issue. FIFA’s leadership, much like that of Formula 1, appears to be more concerned with maximizing revenue than preserving the integrity of the sport. The parallels between FIFA and Formula 1 are not just in business strategy but also in the way decisions are made without consulting the stakeholders most affected. The FIA's current presidential elections, in which Ben Sulayem is unopposed, also highlight the lack of democratic process in motorsport governance. FIFA must recognize that such practices could lead to a similar loss of credibility.
FIFA supporters and fans are clearly sending a message: football should not be reduced to a mere profit-generating entity. The World Cup represents a global celebration, not a commodity for sale. Ensuring the sport remains accessible and true to its core principles must take precedence over fleeting financial interests. The rejection of Infantino’s plans by UEFA and CONCACAF has sent a strong message that football’s soul must be preserved. If FIFA is to learn from Formula 1’s trajectory, it must embrace transparency, prioritize fan engagement, and resist the urge to become a commercial brand rather than a global sport.