FIFA face global mutiny as Asian Football Confederation stand with Europe and North America after their boycott threats.
By Reuters and The Associated Press
Published On 31 Jul 202631 Jul 2026
The Asian Football Confederation has said it “stands in solidarity” with regional bodies UEFA and CONCACAF in opposing plans to sell a stake in the World Cup to private investors but stopped short of threatening to boycott events run by FIFA, global football’s governing body.
The confederation in a statement on Friday expressed “deep concern” over the proposed establishment of a $20bn commercial subsidiary, FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE), to run the World Cup and FIFA’s other events.
Recommended Stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
“The fact that the situation has reached the point where the real possibility of a FIFA World Cup boycott has entered public discourse should concern everyone who cares about the future of our game,” the statement said.
“Football should never have been placed in such a position.”
UEFA, European football’s governing body, voted unanimously on Thursday to boycott all FIFA events unless the plans were dropped. CONCACAF, the regional federation for North America, Central America and the Caribbean, has also rejected FIFA’s proposal.
On Thursday, AFC President Sheikh Salman bin Ebrahim Al Khalifa had said the way the proposal had been made was “totally unacceptable”, in a letter to member associations.
The AFC said “the proposed FFE cannot realistically achieve the necessary broad consensus and unity required to move forward.
“The FIFA World Cup is the pinnacle of global football and derives its strength from the participation of all confederations and the world’s leading football nations.”
The AFC also made a thinly veiled attack on the governing body’s president, Gianni Infantino, saying the plan “has exposed fundamental weaknesses in FIFA’s consultation and decision-making processes that must now be addressed”.
Even after FIFA issued a new statement on Friday, saying each national association “should be allowed to review the proposal and have a say in shaping their own future”, the AFC said “central concerns surrounding governance, institutional process and meaningful consultation remain unanswered”.
It said the furore must become a catalyst for institutional reform at FIFA, and that “meaningful democracy is not measured solely by the opportunity to vote.
“It begins with transparent governance, timely consultation, informed deliberation and genuine participation throughout the decision-making process.”
“UEFA and its national associations will not participate in FIFA competitions,” the European soccer body said after an urgent online meeting of its 55 member nations.
The next scheduled FIFA tournament is within weeks in Europe — the Women’s Under-20 World Cup hosted by Poland from Sept. 5 — and the four British federations comprise FIFA’s only bidder to host the 2035 Women’s World Cup. That decision is due Nov. 23.
“Some things are simply too important to sell,” UEFA said in a statement. “The FIFA World Cup belongs to football. It always will. And so long as Europe has a voice, it will never be for sale.”
The strategy meeting was called to counter FIFA president Infantino’s offer of $20 million to each of FIFA’s 211 global members that has to be accepted by mid-September.
Later Thursday, the 41-member Confederation of North, Central American and Caribbean Assn. Football (CONCACAF) met and announced it rejected Infantino’s plan.
In a statement, CONCACAF said members “expressed deep concerns about the lack of due process surrounding the proposal, the artificially short deadline imposed, and the absence of any review or approval by the relevant FIFA governance bodies.” It also questioned the need for outside investment “following the most profitable FIFA World Cup in history.”
Infantino’s secret project was revealed Tuesday to spin off its commercial operations in a new $20-billion subsidiary called FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE) 20% owned by private investors. The core investor would be a New York investment firm created by Joshua Kushner, the brother of U.S. President Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner.
Infantino wrote Tuesday to the 211 members — already the effective owners of FIFA as a nonprofit association under Swiss law — that if they approve FFE their promised $10-million basic funding for the next four years will double to $20 million. He projected their FIFA funding through 2038 would be $86 million each, instead of about $36 million.
“This is not merely a profound failure of leadership, but an abdication of FIFA’s duty as the custodian of world football,” said UEFA, where Infantino was a longtime staffer and its CEO-like general secretary when he was first elected to lead FIFA in 2016.
Infantino’s presidency at risk?
Infantino’s high-stakes financial gambit now could threaten his previously secure 11-year presidency of FIFA as anger and frustration with him rises among soccer stakeholders including three of the six continental bodies.
FIFA has set a Nov. 18 deadline for potential candidates to declare in a presidential vote of the 211 members scheduled next March in Rabat, Morocco.
Infantino had seemed — 11 days ago after the World Cup final in East Rutherford, N.J. — to have a clear path to being reelected unopposed for a fourth and final term in office through 2031, despite a furor over letting United States forward Folarin Balogun play against Belgium despite a red card in his previous game.
Soccer officials have said privately Infantino has eyed a lucrative commissioner-like role at the FFE spinoff beyond 2031.
“Game over, Gianni #InfantinOUT,” the Football Supporters Europe group, which advises UEFA on fan issues such as ticket prices, posted after the boycott threat.
Soccer’s concern at investor pressure
UEFA detailed Thursday why soccer officials fear external investors owning a stake of the global game’s biggest events, including World Cups and Club World Cups for men and women.
“The moment external investors acquire ownership interests in FIFA competitions, football changes forever,” UEFA said. “Commercial return becomes a permanent obligation. Investor expectations become a daily pressure.”
Infantino has presented the private equity offer as a chance to “turbocharge” funding development of soccer across the world, where a majority of the 211 FIFA members rely on its funding.
Officials from about 40 UEFA members spoke at the urgent meeting, with anger expressed that FIFA is not using some of its multi-billion reserves to fund extra development programs.
“As a result of today’s discussion, no UEFA national teams will participate in any FIFA competition for so long as these proposals remain alive,” the European soccer body said, “unless this proposal has been abandoned in its entirety and binding assurances have been given that FIFA will never again open its governance or competitions to private ownership.”
Asia adds rare criticism of Infantino
On a seismic day in soccer politics, a traditional bedrock of support in Asia for FIFA and Infantino had earlier Thursday been shaken.
“FIFA’s unilateral actions appear to undermine the very foundations of continental football,” the Asian Football Confederation president Sheikh Salman bin Ibrahim Al Khalifa said in a letter to its 46 members of FIFA, warning of risks to their own competitions.
Sheikh Salman, an ally to Infantino since losing the FIFA presidential election to him in 2016, wrote “such an initiative will not succeed without the support of all the confederations, which is not the case now.”
In a video message published Wednesday by FIFA, Infantino insisted spinning off its money-making operations was “an offer, not an obligation.”
A FIFA presentation for its members, co-written with its banking advisors from J.P. Morgan and seen by the Associated Press, set a goal for FFE as “commercial rigor and expertise to better capitalize on broadcast rights, sponsorships and a growing tournament portfolio.”
FIFA squeeze on continental games
That growing portfolio probably would include adding more teams to FIFA competitions such as the World Cup and Club World Cup for men and women, and potentially staging them more often than every four years, including in the U.S.
FIFA adding teams, games and competitions would squeeze the value, status and space in the congested global fixture calendar for those that fund and are organized by the six continental soccer bodies like UEFA and the AFC. Those include World Cup qualifying games, continental tournaments and Champions Leagues.
“It is important that the AFC family has a complete understanding,” Sheikh Salman wrote, “of how such an initiative may affect key areas of global and Asian football, including the sustainability of confederation and [domestic] competitions, as well as the organization and commercial landscape surrounding the AFC’s activities.”
UEFA’s previous boycott threat
A threatened World Cup boycott from Europe helped derail Infantino’s plan in 2021 to play World Cups every two years instead of four.
Uefa’s 55 member associations have voted to boycott the World Cup if Fifa proceeds with its plan to sell stakes in its competitions to private investors.
The decision was made at an emergency meeting on Thursday to discuss the proposals announced by Fifa – world football’s governing body – on Tuesday.
Uefa, which governs European football, had made its opposition clear by releasing two damning statements about the plans – and that strength of feeling has now been reaffirmed.
The boycott would cover all Fifa competitions, including the men’s and women’s World Cups and Club World Cup and be triggered if Fifa president Gianni Infantino’s proposals are voted through by member associations.
The first time this stance will be tested is October, when the Women’s World Cup play-offs are due to be held.
The dust has barely settled on the expanded 48-team FIFA World Cup 2026, yet further development of the competition’s future has already been mooted, as well as struck by a fierce backlash.
The shine on the trophy, now held by Spain after their defeat of Argentina in the final, still glitters brightly, but there were tarnishes to this year’s event.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
Now, the game’s global governing body, FIFA, and its president, Gianni Infantino, face yet more criticism after a plan was released to sell stakes in future World Cups and other events to private investors.
From European football’s governing body, UEFA, to the United Kingdom’s new prime minister, Andy Burnham, FIFA’s plan has been slammed. There has even been a suggestion of a boycott by UEFA.
Al Jazeera Sport takes a look at what the latest proposals on FIFA’s desk mean.
What are Gianni Infantino and FIFA’s new World Cup plans?
FIFA announced plans on Tuesday to sell stakes in future World Cups and other events to private investors in a bid to maximise revenue for the sport.
The proposal is to create a $20bn subsidiary to run the World Cup and other events.
FIFA says it would retain the majority share of a newly created FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE) scheme, meaning it would still preside over football governance, competitions, match calendars and regulatory and sporting decisions.
Minority stakes, however, would be sold to external investors to raise up to $4.2bn as part of the new proposal.
Why do Infantino and FIFA want to sell stakes in the World Cup?
Debate raged for months in the build-up to World Cup 2026 that FIFA’s ticket pricing was pushing fans out of “the people’s game”, as it has long been regarded.
FIFA’s defence was that the World Cup is their main source of income to support the game around the globe – from the sport’s grassroots to the administration of the major international events.
This latest proposal is FIFA’s attempt to stretch that revenue potential even further.
How would the new plan for the FIFA World Cup work?
Billions of dollars are already raised by FIFA tournaments, largely from broadcasting rights, sponsorship and other commercial deals.
This new commercial subsidiary, the FFE, would extend beyond traditional means of raising funds and would be akin to the franchise model that many sports have now turned to.
The Indian Premier League (IPL), a T20 cricket tournament, was one of the first competitions to fully exploit the potential of franchise models, selling stakes in teams in a newly formed competition.
Teams in that competition are owned by majority investors, who therefore hold significant sway in how it is run.
Other models, including The Hundred of the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) – an attempt to rival the IPL – have sold minority ownership of the teams.
ECB, as a result, retains control of the competition, and this is what FIFA is proposing for the share of the World Cup and its events that it intends to sell privately.
Nonetheless, a share is a share and new investors, be it in cricket’s The Hundred or in the FIFA World Cup, will expect at the very least to be heard when it comes to decision-making.
This is where concerns are being raised about the proposals.
US President Donald Trump and FIFA President Gianni Infantino, left, hand the World Cup trophy to Spain’s Rodri before the 2026 trophy lift [Hannah Mckay/Reuters]
Who are the potential investors in the World Cup and other FIFA events?
Thrive Eternal, a United States venture capital firm, has been put forward to lead the proposed investor group, FIFA said.
The vehicle was founded by Joshua Kushner, the brother of US President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner.
Any potential investors would thereafter buy into the FIFA events via Thrive Eternal.
What benefits are FIFA claiming if the World Cup and events plan succeeds?
FIFA has said all net benefits will be reinvested in football, and that all countries should benefit from the ever-increasing profitability of the sport.
“Football is the world’s most popular sport,” FIFA President Gianni Infantino said in a statement.
“Parts of the game have turned that popularity into remarkable commercial value – and we celebrate that success and want it to continue, because it lifts the whole game.
“Our job is to make sure the rest of football grows with it: FIFA exists to support sustainable, inclusive development in every corner of the world.”
‘It is not FIFA’s to sell’: UEFA and UK PM reaction to Infantino’s World Cup plan?
FIFA has already clashed with domestic and continental governing bodies during World Cup 2026. The European powerhouse, UEFA, was the first to speak out against the new proposals.
“This crosses a line that football’s governing institutions should never cross,” UEFA said.
“UEFA takes it extremely seriously. So should every National Football Association. So should every stakeholder who cares about the future of the game.
“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.”
Andy Burnham, who only replaced Keir Starmer as the United Kingdom’s prime minister last week, wrote on X: “Let me say this very directly. Football does not belong to investors. It belongs to the people who fill the stands and who stand on the touchline week in, week out, rain or shine.
“The World Cup is not a product. It is the greatest competition in world sport, and it was never anyone’s to sell. Dress the deal up however you like. Once you have sold a piece of it, you have sold out.
“Football belongs to the fans. It always has, and it always will,” he added.
The Confederation of North, Central America and Caribbean Association Football (CONCACAF) said on Wednesday that it had not been informed of FIFA’s proposed sale of equity to outside investors and was “deeply concerned” over a lack of due process.
What will happen next for FIFA’s World Cup plans, and will UEFA boycott?
Any change will need to be voted through by FIFA’s 211-country membership.
Of that number, 55 nations fall within UEFA’s governance.
The European body will hold an emergency meeting later this week to discuss the proposals.
Were FIFA to implement such a plan, one possible response UEFA could take would include a boycott of FIFA competitions.
Although at just above a quarter of FIFA membership, Europe has produced the winner of six of the last eight World Cups.
Argentina and Brazil are the only teams to prevent a clean sweep by the Europeans in that time, and, indeed, are the only nations outside Europe to win the World Cup since fellow South Americans Uruguay won their second and last title in 1950.
What were the main criticisms of FIFA World Cup 2026?
The main criticism going into the 2026 World Cup, held in the US, Canada and Mexico, was pricing. From tickets to transport links, it was felt that football fans on median salaries around the world were being priced out of the game.
During the World Cup, the decision to suspend a red card shown to USA striker Folarin Balogun “undermined the game’s integrity and credibility,” according to UEFA.
US President Donald Trump said he called Infantino about the ban that Balogun faced – the forward lined up for USA in their next match against Belgium.
FIFA also faced a backlash over hydration breaks that were introduced midway through each half of those matches. Critics said the breaks functioned primarily as commercial opportunities for broadcasters and disrupted the traditional flow of football matches at the tournament.
Argentina superstar Lionel Messi, right, during a hydration break at the World Cup [Lee Smith/Reuters]
Immigrants detained at two federal facilities in California have launched a boycott in protest of increasing and, in their view, burdensome prices at the facilities’ commissaries for items including tampons, coffee and soup.
The Times reviewed a grievance letter and spoke with three detainees who are involved in the boycott at the California City Detention Facility, about 80 miles east of Bakersfield, and at the Golden State Annex in McFarland.
More than 300 detainees are estimated to have signed grievance letters sent recently to facility administrators, according to advocates with the California Collaborative for Immigrant Justice.
Both facilities are operated by private prison corporations — the California City facility by Tennessee-based CoreCivic and the Golden State Annex by Florida-based GEO Group.
The Times has reached out to the Department of Homeland Security, GEO Group and CoreCivic for comment.
Detainees are provided certain essentials, such as food and soap, free of charge, but many also purchase items at commissary stores that are of better quality or otherwise unavailable. Detainees said shampoo and other hygiene items sometimes run out for days and that meals are small or exacerbate diabetes and other health issues.
“The three daily meals that CoreCivic provides at California City Detention Facility are the bare minimum to keep a person alive,” they wrote. “Because of this, charging inflated prices on necessities is considered price gouging and profiteering against vulnerable incarcerated population who have no ability to refuse or shop elsewhere.”
The detainees said an 8 oz. jar of Folgers instant coffee costs $18 at the California City facility, a single instant ramen soup is 75 cents and a box of 40 tampons costs nearly $21.
At Walmart, the same Folgers coffee costs $8.97, Maruchan chicken ramen soup is 50 cents and 40 Tampax tampons are $12.19.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detains immigrants for civil purposes. Detention is meant to facilitate removal proceedings but is not meant to be punitive.
Detainees are paid $1 per day under a voluntary work program for cleaning or cooking. Many detainees rely on money from family and friends.
In their grievance letter, the detainees called the markups an unacceptable business practice with no apparent limit. They said they view the situation as an example of captive market exploitation and economic coercion.
The detainees requested a review of commissary pricing by facility leaders, a comparison of prices with prison industry standards, an immediate reduction in prices of essential items and the implementation of reasonable price caps. They also requested an increase in the portions of daily meals, including for meals meeting religious requirements, which they said are particularly small.
In May, the California State Senate passed a bill that would prohibit the excessive markup of products sold at private detention centers, limiting prices to 35% above the vendor cost. Existing California law already limits such markups in state prisons. The bill is now in the Assembly.
Priya Patel, an attorney at the California Collaborative for Immigrant Justice, represents people who have been detained at both facilities. She said that during legal service consultations, commissary pricing frequently comes up.
“The higher the prices get, the higher of an impact the conditions have on people and the more difficult it becomes to fight their cases,” Patel said.
The collaborative is one of the organizations that brought a lawsuit last year alleging inadequate medical care, as well as insufficient clothing, food, water and outdoor recreation time at the California City facility, which can hold more than 2,500 people. The lawsuit remains ongoing; in March, a U.S. district judge in San Francisco appointed an external monitor to ensure the facility provides “constitutionally adequate health care.”
The lawsuit describes multiple commissary-related issues. For example, it says the facility doesn’t provide headphones for tablets, making private phone calls — including privileged calls with attorneys — impossible unless the detainee can afford to purchase headphones from the commissary.
“One detained person has difficulty walking and standing for extended periods of time without shoes that provide arch support,” the complaint says. “He arrived at California City with appropriate shoes to accommodate his mobility disability, which were approved as an accommodation at a prior ICE facility. California City staff confiscated those shoes and instead provided him with plastic, orange sandals.”
“Several weeks after staff confiscated his shoes, he had an appointment with a doctor at California City,” it continues. “The doctor told the him … to buy different shoes from commissary to accommodate his foot condition.”
A contract between CoreCivic and ICE for the California City facility, dated April 1, 2025, says the contractor must provide notice of any price increases and that “any revenues earned in excess of what is required for commissary operations shall be used solely to benefit aliens at the facility.”
Alfredo Parada Calderon, 52, has been detained at the California City facility since September. He said commissary prices were already high before they increased around mid-June.
Parada Calderon said he asked an ICE officer why the prices had increased so much. The officer said he wasn’t aware of the change but that the vendor is Keefe Group, which supplies commissaries at prisons and immigrant detention centers across the country.
Detainees in his dormitory submitted a grievance about commissary prices, Parada Calderon said. The answer was vague.
“They’re blaming it on inflation,” he said.
Parada Calderon said his family sends him about $100 per month to spend on commissary items, which he spends on packets of crackers, coffee, soups, soap, shampoo, deodorant and chips.
“Enough is enough,” he said. “It’s a horrible enough place to be in and you guys are making it even more horrible, not just for me but for my family. The detainees want to be heard and this is the only option we actually have — a peaceful protest.”
Tommaso Bardelli, a researcher at New York University who studies mass incarceration, said the families of most people in prison are working class and may sacrifice their electricity bill or credit card payment to send money to their incarcerated relatives. The money they send no longer pays for small luxuries, he said, because prisons have over the years reduced how much they spend per person on necessities such as food.
Bardelli published a research article in 2022 about inequality within prison commissary stores. Commissary is often now the difference between starving and a semi-normal diet, he said.
A record 10 African teams are competing at the 2026 World Cup. But 60 years ago, not one African nation played in the 1966 World Cup. Al Jazeera’s Samantha Johnson looks at the 1966 boycott that helped reshape the tournament for generations to come.
EU says the sanctioned individuals and groups violated a range of rights, from the right to physical and mental integrity, to the right to education.
Published On 28 May 202628 May 2026
The European Union has sanctioned four entities and three individuals it says are “extremist Israeli settlers” responsible for “serious” human rights abuses against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank.
The EU said they had violated a range of rights, including the rights to physical and mental integrity, privacy and family life, freedom of religion and education.
The sanctions include the Nachala Settlement Movement and its director, Daniella Weiss. The EU says the group “encourages and facilitates coercive acts that lead to the forced displacement of Palestinians”.
Israeli NGO Regavim and its director, Meir Deutsch, are also on the sanctions list for lobbying “for the demolition of Palestinian property” in order to expand Israel’s control over the entirety of the West Bank, plus the demolition of an EU-funded Palestinian primary school.
Also sanctioned is the Hashomer Yosh NGO and its president, Avichai Suissa for supporting “at least 28 violent outposts and settlements”. It also recruits armed volunteers and provides guards who engage in violent attacks, the EU added.
The Amana cooperative association of the settler movement Gush Emunim was also sanctioned, the EU stating it had likewise “played a key role in initiating, financing, and facilitating at least 30 violent outposts and settlements”.
Long-awaited sanctions
With Thursday’s additions, the EU said it now sanctions 136 persons and 41 entities from a range of countries under its Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime.
The regime was created in 2020, and applies to acts such as genocide, crimes against humanity and other serious human rights violations or abuses.
The measures targeting Israeli settlers because of violence against Palestinians were long-awaited, having been blocked by the self-styled illiberal government of Hungary’s former premier Viktor Orban.
However, the appointment of new Prime Minister Peter Magyar saw the veto quickly lifted earlier this month.
Israel earlier condemned the sanctions, asserting that Jews have the right to settle in the occupied West Bank, despite that being in violation of international law.
In 2025, the expansion of Israeli settlements reached its highest level since at least 2017, when the United Nations began tracking data.
Since the start of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, the West Bank has been gripped by almost daily violence involving Israeli troops and settlers. More than 1,000 Palestinians have been killed in the territory, according to the UN.
