musili ben nzuka @MusiliBen

@TheAthleticFC Man Cheaty

@gina_din @SakajaJohnson There is no tender in that

This one is really dicey. FIFA is registered as a non-profit association under Swiss law. Its 211 member associations own it. It pays no corporate tax in Switzerland. And right now, while the ink is barely dry on the 2026 World Cup final, it is in advanced discussions to sell a minority stake in its commercial operations to private investors, with JP Morgan acting as financial adviser and Thrive Capital, whose chief executive is Josh Kushner, expected to lead the investor group. UEFA is responding. And I see reason with them. Their statement called it a crossing of a line and said the soul and governance of football are not assets to trade. Let me explain what is actually happening here and why both positions are legally and commercially coherent at the same time. The legal vehicle at the centre of this is called FIFA Forward Enterprise, or FFE. It is a FIFA-owned company that would consolidate all of FIFA's commercial rights, broadcasting, sponsorship, ticketing, licensing, and the operational delivery of FIFA tournaments, into a single entity. Based on how things are proposed, FIFA would retain majority control and exclusive authority over governance, competitions, the match calendar, and all regulatory and sporting decisions. Private investors would then hold a minority, non-controlling stake in the subsidiary, not in FIFA itself. FIFA says the proposal could deliver more than $10 billion in football development funding over the next four years. Now here is the legal position. Under Swiss association law, FIFA has broad autonomy over how it manages and commercialises its assets, provided it pursues its statutory purpose of promoting football and follows its internal decision-making rules. Creating a commercial subsidiary and selling minority stakes in it to private investors is not categorically prohibited under any applicable law. FIFA already commercialises its rights aggressively through sponsorships, media deals, and licensing arrangements worth billions of dollars per cycle. Placing some of that commercial activity into a valued vehicle and inviting outside capital is structurally an extension of what FIFA already does, not a departure from it. The proposal requires approval from the FIFA Council and the 211 member associations. That approval process is where the real legal constraints sit, not in Swiss corporate law. What UEFA is objecting to is not the legality of the structure. They are objecting to the incentive architecture it creates once private capital is inside the tent. And again, that objection deserves to be taken seriously. Even with formal majority control retained, private investors seeking returns will create ongoing pressure. They will request more matches, an expanded calendar. They will make decisions that prioritise revenue over player welfare or competitive balance. Of course that pressure will not arrive through a boardroom vote. It arrives gradually, through the logic of what a return on investment requires. FIFA can retain exclusive authority over sporting decisions and still find that sporting decisions are shaped by the financial expectations of its commercial partners. Those are not mutually exclusive outcomes. The legal permissibility of this structure is high if internal approvals are obtained. The binding constraints are member consent, political capital, and the risk that private capital incentives gradually reshape priorities even under retained formal control. Football has watched that process play out at club level for thirty years. The question being asked right now, with genuine urgency, is whether the same dynamic should be allowed inside the institution that governs the game itself. My name is Ajoje. I am a FIFA Licensed Agent and International Sports Lawyer. I write on the Law and Business of Football, a lot. Repost and Follow if you want to read more posts like this.

Sky Sports News @SkySportsNews

3 months ago

BREAKING: UEFA have hit out at FIFA's reported plans to sell stakes in the World Cup to private investors 🚨

197 993 9K 2.3M 338

I know karma exists because Bill Gates is obsessed with his reputation and now the entire world knows he got an std from Russian hookers and gave it to his wife. 😂😂😂

@AbdikadirMohami Pole he has touched your ethnicity

@elonmusk Why don’t you also in your righteous journey show us white rapists as well. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

@FoxNews Why not strike them in country like what you’re favorite friends from Israel do

Biggest problem for @WilliamsRuto will be how he handles June 25th 2027. His actions will determine his own fate less than two months to the election.

@ahmednasirlaw @HonAdenDuale Your principled opinions stop once you cross into the North Eastern Frontier. Essentially behaving like many other Kenyans.

It is perplexing that the government is proceeding with the privatization of State-Owned Enterprises even as it undertakes the re-enactment of the Privatization Act, which was recently declared unconstitutional due to inadequate public participation. Advancing privatization efforts while the legal framework remains unsettled will create opportunities for people to stop the process altogether.

@SylviaKangara We know at State house, gardeners are busier than you since the Boss takes no advice. So respect the office assistants.

@SylviaKangara It’s a mystery how access to power dims intelligence.

@SingoeiAKorir This is the documented daily rate in Kenya.

@AdamCrafton_ You often come across as a rabble-rouser. Your reporting tends to lack balance, and it seems that’s part of your approach, frequently leaning on your rainbow affiliations to cast the club in a constant state of crisis.

@mbiti_mwondi Current one’s have 44 ferragamo products

@NPSOfficial_KE These have been the only cases of crime in the country for the last four months. Commendable

While investment roadshows may look promising on paper, the real challenge lies in the practical realities investors face once their capital reaches the country. Structural barriers—such as protracted land disputes and burdensome regulatory red tape—continue to frustrate the execution of large-scale commercial projects. These issues are not merely inconveniences; they fundamentally undermine investor confidence and long-term commitment. Rather than focusing solely on promotional efforts and public relations exercises, it would be more impactful to address these systemic challenges that deter both existing and prospective investors. Creating a predictable, transparent, and investor-friendly environment is the most effective way to attract and retain meaningful investment. A case in point is the taxation regime for foreign subsidiaries. Consideration should be given to establishing a differentiated tax regime for foreign entities—tailored by sector—that incentivizes long-term investment, encourages reinvestment of profits, and promotes the transfer of skills and technology. Such structural reforms would send a clear message that the country is serious about creating a competitive, welcoming investment climate and thereafter, they will come by themselves.

@etadv @RobertAlai He has a big head 😂

@SpokespersonGoK Leave the hot topics

@wnyakera Exactly. Profits should be primarily driven by operations.