World Cup 2026: Joshua Kushner Says He Regrets Joining Fifa’s Scrapped Sell-Off Plan

Joshua Kushner says he regrets joining Fifa’s scrapped plan to sell stakes in the World Cup. The Thrive Capital founder, who was set to be lead investor in Fifa president Gianni Infantino’s Fifa Forward Enterprise (FFE) scheme, gave his first public comments since the proposal was shelved. Speaking to BBC sports editor Dan Roan in a piece published on 31 August 2026, Kushner said: “Had we known what this would devolve into, we would not have gotten involved.” He added that he had “failed to appreciate the political dynamics of global football”. The scheme triggered a major crisis for the governing body less than a year out from the tournament.

What Kushner Actually Said

Kushner’s regret is about the involvement, not the idea. His two key lines point the same way: he would not have signed up had he anticipated the backlash, and he underestimated football’s internal politics. Crucially, he still defends the merits of the proposal itself — which leaves the door open to the model resurfacing in some other form, though nothing official has been announced.

Kushner founded Thrive Capital in 2009 and is the brother of Jared Kushner, son-in-law of US President Donald Trump. With the 2026 World Cup hosted by the United States, Canada and Mexico, that political proximity sharpened scrutiny of the deal from the moment it emerged.

Fifa Forward Enterprise: The Plan That Was Shelved

FFE would have sold stakes in the World Cup, opening a share of future revenue from football’s most profitable event to private investors. For a body that presents the tournament as an asset belonging to its 211 member associations, that read as a change in what the World Cup is, not as routine financial engineering.

The backlash was broad enough to kill the plan before any formal approval. That backlash — political resistance from inside football itself — is precisely the factor Kushner now says he failed to price in.

Why English Football Recognises This Argument

England has already had this fight domestically. The proposed European Super League collapsed in 2021 within days of launch after supporter and government pressure, and the Premier League’s own private equity discussions have repeatedly run into questions about who controls the competition once outside capital owns a slice of its revenue.

That history matters here. English clubs, the Premier League and the FA operate in a market where private investment is normal — but where selling a share of the competition itself, rather than of a club, has consistently proved a step too far. The FFE row is the same argument moved up to global level.

What It Changes for England and the 2026 World Cup

Nothing changes on the pitch. The 48-team format, the fixture calendar and prize money distribution are unaffected by the plan being dropped, and preparations across the United States, Canada and Mexico continue as scheduled.

The damage is governance. Fifa heads into its biggest ever tournament with an unresolved argument about who economically owns the World Cup, and with a precedent now set: member associations demonstrated they can stop an initiative driven from the presidency. The underlying question — how to fund an expanded tournament without selling a share of it — remains open.

What to Watch Next

Three things are worth tracking. Any formal Fifa statement on how it intends to fund the expanded tournament; the position of the confederations, with Uefa carrying the most weight; and any return of the proposal under a different name or structure, which is common after an unpopular plan is withdrawn.

There is no official confirmation that the scheme is being revived in any form. Kushner’s own comments suggest he is not looking to re-enter on the same terms.

FAQ