FIFA COO Kevin Lamour says staff were “deceived” over World Cup sell-off plan
FIFA chief operating officer Kevin Lamour says staff were deceived by President Gianni Infantino’s World Cup sell-off plan, calling for the proposal to be halted amid growing resignations and internal dissent.
Strong rebuke from FIFA’s operations chief
Lamour, FIFA’s Zurich-based chief operating officer, publicly stated that staff were misled over the World Cup sell-off plan and urged that the project should not proceed.
He defended colleagues and said they “deserve better than contempt and intimidation,” signalling deep institutional unease within FIFA’s executive ranks.
The remarks amount to an extraordinary internal rebuke of President Gianni Infantino and the way the plan was developed and communicated to senior staff.
Senior adviser Carlos Cordeiro resigns in protest
Carlos Cordeiro, a senior adviser to Infantino and former US Soccer Federation president, resigned following the emergence of the proposal and called on other senior FIFA officials to speak out.
Cordeiro said he had no involvement in the talks and described the proposed commercial structure as “a bad deal for football,” urging rejection of the plan.
His departure—after a banking career and a high-profile role alongside Infantino—adds weight to the criticism and raises questions about who was included in the planning process.
Lamour signals willingness to lose his job over the issue
In a stark statement to news agencies, Lamour suggested he would accept dismissal rather than remain silent about the matter, saying he would “sleep well” if forced to leave.
He emphasised a duty to staff and to the integrity of FIFA’s internal processes, reiterating that the sell-off had been driven by a single individual rather than through full institutional debate.
Lamour’s stance underscores a fracture between long-serving executives and the president’s inner circle over governance and decision-making norms.
Structure of the proposed commercial spin-off
Infantino’s proposal envisions spinning off FIFA’s commercial businesses—including the men’s and women’s World Cups and Club World Cups—into a commercial subsidiary valued at $20 billion.
Under the plan, private investors would hold 20 percent of the new entity and an “anchor investor” linked to a New York fund would take a prominent stake.
FIFA’s leadership described the move as a way to capitalise future revenues, but critics say the terms risk permanently ceding control over football’s most valuable competitions.
Financial objections and governance risks raised by insiders
Resigning adviser Cordeiro and other critics pointed to FIFA’s strong financial position, noting the organisation’s multi‑billion dollar reserves and recent revenues tied to the men’s World Cup.
They argue that selling a perpetual stake for an upfront sum—reportedly intended to raise about $4.2 billion—amounts to mortgaging football’s future for short‑term gain.
Questions have also been raised about transparency, conflict of interest, and whether proper consultations with member associations took place.
Pushback from member federations in Africa and Asia
Several national federations, particularly in Africa and Asia, have been reported as weighing their responses and considering the implications of the offer to federations of $20 million each.
Those federations have been given a timeline to decide, with offers reportedly conditioned on acceptance by a specified deadline of September 19, 2026.
Lamour has been a familiar interlocutor with these member bodies, and his criticism could influence how federations approach the offer and their broader relationship with FIFA leadership.
Political stakes ahead of FIFA’s leadership calendar
Infantino has served as FIFA president for more than a decade and has been positioned to seek another term, with an anticipated presidential contest slated for March 2027.
FIFA has set a deadline of November 18, 2026, for any potential challengers to declare their candidacy, placing the sell-off debate squarely in the run-up to that timeline.
The controversy over the commercial plan is likely to shape political alignments inside the federation and could prompt calls for greater oversight of major strategic transactions.
Commercial backers and reputational considerations
The planned “anchor investor” has been associated in reports with a fund linked to prominent US financiers, which has intensified scrutiny given political and familial ties reported in public accounts.
Opponents say selling a lasting stake to private equity interests raises not only financial but reputational concerns for the sport’s global governing body.
Supporters of a commercial transaction counter that monetising future revenues could underwrite developmental and operational priorities, but those arguments are being tested by the present backlash.
FIFA now faces a pivotal choice: either to press ahead with a high‑stakes commercial restructure despite vocal internal and external opposition, or to pause, broaden internal consultations, and reassess the terms.
As federations digest the proposal and senior executives weigh their positions, the outcome will shape the governance and commercial trajectory of the World Cup for years to come.