For the first time, money is not the issue

In modern history, rarely has there been a moment of global consensus quite like this: an absolute, unified rejection by football confederations around the world of FIFA’s plan to sell a commercial stake in its tournaments, including the World Cup, to private investors through a newly proposed $20 billion entity, “FIFA Forward Enterprise.” Yet, in a world dominated by market imperatives and relentless capital accumulation, the most remarkable aspect of this rebellion is that money is not the issue.

This rare exception gives the moment a profound historical and philosophical resonance. Since the rise of globalized capitalism and the hyper-commodification of society, humanity has grown accustomed to watching values, principles, and national dignity erode before the lure of capital.

Today, however, those opposing FIFA’s scheme stand united in asserting that some things transcend financial valuation. We are witnessing a rare moment of clarity—a collective realization of what truly matters, reclaiming the essence of human dignity from the machinery of the market.

From a philosophical perspective, this is not a routine dispute over profit margins or equity shares; it is an existential clash over the distinction between price and worth. Immanuel Kant famously posited that whatever has a price can be replaced by something else as its equivalent, whereas that which is above all price, and admits of no equivalent, possesses intrinsic dignity and value. FIFA’s bureaucratic apparatus attempted to attach a price tag to something that possesses inherent dignity, overlooking the fact that cultural and emotional heritage forfeits its meaning the moment it enters the auction house.

This truth was reflected in UEFA’s defensive manifesto, which affirmed: “The World Cup cannot be treated as an investment product. It is one of football’s greatest legacies, built over generations by players, national teams, and fans across all continents. No part of it should ever be surrendered to private investors. The World Cup is not for sale.”

The phrase “not for sale” transcends sports journalism—it serves as a philosophical critique of a neoliberal order that attempts to convert human passion into tradeable assets.

READ: Trump wants to nominate FIFA chief for UN secretary-general: Report

The political stakes are equally profound when examining the intersection of power and private equity in this deal. FIFA announced that “Thrive Eternal,” a fund managed by Joshua Kushner’s Thrive Capital, was slated to lead the investor group—Joshua being the brother of Jared Kushner, son-in-law to former U.S. President Donald Trump. This alignment illustrates an oligarchical fusion of political influence and private capital seeking to privatize public spaces.

In response, UK Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy voiced strong political backing for UEFA’s stance, stating: “Football belongs to the fans, not billionaire investors. Enough is enough. It is time to take a stand to protect our game.”

Her statement aligns with Jürgen Habermas’s critique of the market’s encroachment on the “lifeworld” and the public sphere, reminding us that football remains one of the last shared social spaces holding communities together.

Historically, this conflict highlights the alienation of the game from a shared human ritual rooted in belonging to a consumer industry governed by technocrats. Alexander Wehrle, CEO of VfB Stuttgart and chairman of the supervisory board at the DFB (German Football Association), captured this disconnect when questioning FIFA President Gianni Infantino’s grasp of the game: “Has Gianni Infantino ever played professional football? I think he played in the fifth division in Switzerland. Has he ever stood among the fans? Does he really know what football means—football as a game, as a unifying element?” Wehrle concluded with a stern warning: “I am deeply concerned that one man could destroy world football.” This critique lays bare the cognitive divide between administrators operating through spreadsheets and supporters experiencing football as an existential source of passion and identity.

Similarly, Chelsea manager Xabi Alonso framed the issue through an ethical lens, telling reporters: “That is the nature of our love for football… We have to defend the interests of all people. I think this is a shared feeling among people in football. We want to preserve football for the fans, for everyone, and not for other interests.” Alonso’s position underscores the moral obligation to safeguard the collective right to joy, arguing that surrendering the sport to private interests reduces fans from co-creators of cultural symbols to mere consumers of a commercial service.

The historical gravity of this moment was further underscored by the Asian Football Confederation (AFC), which warned that the mere public discussion of a potential World Cup boycott “should concern everyone who cares about the future of the game… Football should never have reached this point.”

The invocation of a boycott—a radical act of civil and institutional resistance—demonstrates that confederations recognize this isn’t merely a battle over governance rules, but over the very soul of the sport.

For the first time in recent memory, a global consensus has drawn a firm line against the encroachment of unchecked capital. This extraordinary unity proves that when core human values and collective heritages are threatened with erasure, the human spirit can look beyond profit and loss to declare in one voice: you may have the money to buy many things, but football is not for sale—and money, for once, is not the issue.

OPINION: Smart glasses that strip the world bare — and strip us with it

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.