Veteran administrator Tony James says FIFA President Gianni Infantino’s proposal to privatise world football is “underhanded”, but cautions that developing nations under severe financial stress will find the promised US$40-million payout nearly impossible to resist.

James, who led the Jamaica Football Federation (JFF) from 1985 to 1992 and has spent over 50 years working in football, offered a sharp critique of Infantino’s proposed FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE). Under the plan, FIFA aims to create a private commercial entity valued at US$20 billion (over $3 billion) to handle broadcasting, ticketing, sponsorship, and hospitality rights for competitions like the World Cup. Developed alongside JP Morgan, the strategy involves selling up to 21 per cent to private equity investors — led by Joshua Kushner’s firm, Thrive Eternal — to raise US$4.2 billion (roughly $665 billion) in upfront capital. Kushner is the brother of US President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

To win over member nations, FIFA offered a substantial payout of increasing baseline development funding from US$10 million (over $1.5 billion) to US$20 million (over $3 billion) per nation for the 2027-2030 cycle. Associations could also access an additional US$20 million upfront through a new FIFA Fast Forward Programme for infrastructure, putting up to US$40 million on the table per country ahead of a September 19 deadline. Infantino, however, warned that member nations declining support would continue to receive the baseline.

While continental governing bodies have moved to block the move, James says that for smaller member associations, the financial reality takes precedence.

“It is underhanded, and the cynical view is being reinforced by the way it is being proposed now,” James told the Jamaica Observer on Thursday. “He who has the gold makes the rule. That’s how people perceive of it; that it’s the current way of the world. You’re trumping (pardon the pun) institutionalised good governance structures, integrity, etcetera. That’s what’s being put out in the public now.”

JAMES… the cynical view is being reinforced by the way it is being proposed now

Despite the governance concerns, James says smaller associations operate in a vastly different financial reality than European giants.

“This US$40 million for each affiliate will have traction in all the poorer and developing countries,” he said. “The focus will be on CAF [Confederation of African Football], and Concacaf, which includes the Caribbean, but it’s also the poorer countries in Asia and UEFA.

“UEFA’s principled position is understandable, but it’s fortunate in having three financial platforms. One is the World Cup, like everybody else, and their teams are the top of the heap. Let us call them Category A teams because they’re the ones who are going to get most of the money. All of the rest of us are Category B and C teams that should get money, but not like the A teams.”

James’s comments come as global opposition to Infantino’s scheme reaches a boiling point. After an emergency meeting, Concacaf — the governing body for North America, Central America, and the Caribbean — unanimously voted down the proposed enterprise plan, joining European governing body UEFA in open revolt. Concacaf made its announcement moments after the Observer’s interview with James.

In its official statement, Concacaf mentioned severe procedural failures surrounding the proposal.

“During the meeting, the membership expressed deep concerns about the lack of due process surrounding the proposal, the artificially short deadline imposed, and the absence of any review or approval by the relevant FIFA governance bodies,” Concacaf said on its website. “In addition, the need for private equity investment to fund new and existing FIFA Forward programmes following the most profitable FIFA World Cup in history was questioned.”

Concacaf confirmed all 41 member associations rejected the deal after UEFA’s warning that it would pull its teams from FIFA competitions entirely.

“As a result of today’s discussion, no UEFA national teams will participate in any FIFA competition for so long as these proposals remain alive, unless this proposal has been abandoned in its entirety and binding assurances have been given that FIFA will never again open its governance or competitions to private ownership,” UEFA said on its website on Thursday.

Despite Concacaf’s joint rejection, local sentiments reflect exactly what James described.

JFF President Michael Ricketts rejected all of the Observer’s calls to him seeking a comment, and declined to respond to questions posed on WhatsApp.

However, while speaking to Nationwide Sports, he struck a far more open tone regarding the commercial structure.

“I have not discussed it with my directors, but my personal feeling is that, on the face of it, I really don’t think that anything is wrong with it,” Ricketts said. “It’s workable. But the big problem I’m having is the — for want of a better word — non-transparent way in which it was done. We would’ve spent so much time together with the leadership of FIFA before, during, and after the World Cup, and we were never apprised of these discussions, and this would bring to the fore some level of non-transparency.”

Ricketts’s pragmatic view is tied directly to local circumstances. He told the Observer in an interview on July 14 that the JFF is strapped for cash after a costly, unsuccessful World Cup qualifying campaign. He also said in that interview that he would fully support Infantino’s plan to expand the World Cup to 64 teams as early as the 2030 tournament as it would provide a greater chance of qualification for Jamaica.

A US$40-million windfall would completely alter local operations. Furthermore, with Jamaica actively bidding to co-host the 2031 Women’s World Cup with the US, Mexico, and Costa Rica, maintaining good relations with FIFA ahead of Infantino’s re-election bid in March remains a practical priority.

While acknowledging the lifelines that FIFA funds provide, James warned that dumping millions into unprepared administrative set-ups brings serious risks.

“Regrettably, I don’t think most developing countries have an administrative structure to deal with this kind of money. They don’t,” he said. “You also have to ask, given our system, how much of this US$40 million would actually reach football development, because human nature says when you have money, it’s about a source of power, greed, corruption, football politics, and that syphons off the money.”

And on whether Infantino’s tactics amount to using FIFA’s massive wealth to secure political survival ahead of the upcoming presidential vote, James gave a blunt assessment of how the global game operates.

“He has been a disgrace,” James said. “But in a new world where the golden rule applies, when he hits FIFA and hits the politics, what do you think they’re going to say to him? When he tells them how much he has earned off this World Cup, that the vision was his, the planning was his, what he has had to do, ‘Listen, we had problems here and there, but at the end of the day, look at what I have done for you. Look at what FIFA has done for you. Who are you going to vote for?’ What do you think is going to be the response? It’s all about performance. Let’s face it, he has performed.”