£26m-plus Salary: Infantino’s Pay in Secret World Cup Sale Plan Revealed

More than €30million a year, bonuses included. That is the figure Gianni Infantino stood to earn from the FIFA Forward Enterprise project, according to a report in The Times. The concept was straightforward on paper: sell 20 per cent of the World Cup’s commercial rights through a dedicated company, raising roughly €3.65billion for FIFA. The plan reportedly drew fierce criticism and was ultimately shelved, but the scale of the proposed pay package has reopened a question English football has been asking for years — who actually keeps the money the game generates?

What The Times report actually says

The Times reports that the arrangement tied to the FIFA Forward Enterprise project would have delivered Infantino a package worth more than €30million, bonuses included. For context, FIFA’s own published annual financial reports list the president’s remuneration in millions of Swiss francs, not tens of millions of euros. That gap in scale is the story.

The structure centred on a company set up to sell 20 per cent of World Cup rights to outside investors, raising an estimated €3.65billion. Cash up front, in exchange for a slice of the future income from the most lucrative tournament on the planet.

One caveat matters. These details come from a newspaper investigation, not an official FIFA document. The project was reportedly abandoned after internal resistance. Until Zurich confirms, denies or contextualises the numbers, they remain reported figures rather than established fact.

Why England and the Premier League should be paying attention

The Premier League is the wealthiest domestic competition in world football and the biggest single supplier of players to the World Cup. Its clubs pay the wages, carry the injury risk and release internationals every summer for a tournament whose revenue is distributed according to rules written in Zurich, not London.

For the Football Association, the stakes are practical. National associations receive money through FIFA’s development programmes, funding that filters into grassroots pitches, coaching and the women’s game. Any deal that mortgages future World Cup income raises an obvious question: how much is left to distribute across FIFA’s 211 member associations a decade from now?

Premier League clubs have a separate grievance. Arsenal, Manchester City, Liverpool and the rest develop and pay the players who make the tournament worth billions, while the club benefits programme returns only a fraction of the takings. A plan that would have routed several billion euros towards financial investors would not have improved that balance.

Selling 20 per cent of the World Cup: the real risk

Selling a share of future rights means collecting now and giving up later. English football knows the pattern well — clubs and leagues have repeatedly weighed private equity money against long-term control of their own broadcast income, and the trade-off is always the same.

Applied to the World Cup, the effect would be magnified. The 2026 edition, with 48 teams and 104 matches across the United States, Canada and Mexico, is expected to be the highest-earning tournament in history. Selling a slice of that stream before a ball is kicked would mean handing over part of football’s single most valuable asset at the precise moment its value peaks.

That, according to The Times, is what triggered the backlash. An organisation that presents itself as a not-for-profit association serving its member federations struggles to justify transferring part of its core asset to outside financial investors.

Governance: FIFA’s recurring transparency problem

FIFA publishes annual financial reports detailing executive pay, so the existence of a salary is not the issue. The issue is that a package of this size was reportedly contemplated inside a project whose full scope was not clear to the member associations who own the organisation.

It lands harder because the post-2015 era was sold as a clean break. After the scandal that removed the previous leadership, FIFA promised tighter governance rules, an independent compensation committee and greater transparency. Every revelation of this kind is judged against that promise.

In England, calls for a fairer share of international football revenue between the world governing body, national associations and the clubs that develop players have been growing for years. This story hands those voices another argument, even if nothing concrete has changed yet.

What to watch over the coming weeks

First, an official FIFA response. Until the governing body addresses the figures directly, the report should be treated as journalism rather than confirmed record.

Second, the confederations. UEFA and its member associations, the FA included, carry genuine weight at the FIFA Congress. Whether they speak up or stay quiet will reveal the internal balance of power.

Third, timing. With the 2026 World Cup only months away, FIFA has every commercial reason to close this story down before the tournament begins — the period when the organisation is most visible and most exposed.

FAQ