The Asian Football Confederation joined UEFA and Concacaf in opposing FIFA’s proposed introduction of private investment into the commercial operation of its major competitions on July 31, 2026. The AFC said the controversy had exposed problems in FIFA’s consultation and decision-making, widening resistance to a plan that required support from the governing body’s member associations.

The proposal centred on a new company called FIFA Forward Enterprise. FIFA intended to sell private investors a 20 percent interest in the business, which would manage the World Cup and other FIFA competitions. Joshua Kushner’s Thrive Eternal was reportedly positioned as the lead investment group. Kushner is the brother of Jared Kushner, the son-in-law of United States President Donald Trump.

The AFC’s 47 associations added to an opposition bloc that already included UEFA’s 55 members and Concacaf’s 41. Together, those confederations represented 143 of FIFA’s 211 member associations. FIFA president Gianni Infantino had previously said the new company would need approval from a majority of that global membership, making the coordinated resistance a substantial obstacle.

In its response, the AFC aligned itself with the concerns voiced by the European and North and Central American and Caribbean confederations. Its objections covered both the use of private capital in FIFA’s flagship competitions and the institutional process through which the concept had emerged. The AFC and UEFA were also concerned that member associations reportedly learned about the plans through media coverage rather than an internal consultation.

The Asian confederation said the debate went beyond the merits of one corporate structure. It argued that the episode revealed basic weaknesses in governance, institutional procedure and meaningful consultation that still needed answers, even after FIFA provided further clarification. It also warned that allowing discussion to reach the point of a possible World Cup boycott was itself damaging for football.

UEFA had made the boycott threat explicit, saying its members would stay out of FIFA competitions unless the proposal was withdrawn. The supplied report did not say that the AFC independently promised a boycott. Instead, its position reinforced the political pressure around that possibility while formally joining UEFA and Concacaf in rejecting the investment plan.

The collective response also raised questions about Infantino’s standing. The Independent reported that Concacaf nations were losing, or had already lost, confidence in his leadership, while describing his future as increasingly uncertain. Those assessments remained separate from the confirmed numerical problem facing the proposal: the opposition group alone was larger than the number of associations needed to deny it majority support if its members voted together.

FIFA was approached for comment on the confederations’ objections. As of the event date, the AFC’s intervention had transformed an already serious European and Concacaf challenge into opposition spanning three major regional bodies, with the consultation process as central to the dispute as the investment terms themselves.