The plan by Fifa president, Gianni Infantino, to invite equity investment into the World Cup didn’t last long. Announced on July 28, it immediately provoked hostility from across football.
Three days later Fifa sought to reassure critics: “Nobody is selling football. This is not something Fifa would ever entertain.” The proposal was then unceremoniously abandoned less than 48 hours later, amid reports that Infantino’s position is now under considerable pressure.
Although withdrawn, the proposal exposed a more significant issue than the question of the “ownership” of football’s most iconic tournament. Contemporary elite level football has become increasingly dependent on continual commercial expansion. The 2026 Fifa World Cup generated more than US$15 billion (£11.2 billion) in revenue, yet football’s governing bodies continue to search for new sources of growth.
Whether through larger tournaments, expanded club competitions, additional broadcasting rights or private investment, the commercial logic remains the same: increasing the number of matches and the consequent overall value of football.
This expansionist strategy is now encountering increasing resistance from the players themselves. Trade unions, medical experts and international organisations argue that fixture congestion, longer playing times and growing travel demands are pushing elite footballers beyond acceptable limits.
What was once presented as a debate about player welfare is becoming a question of employment rights, occupational health and safety, and the legal responsibilities owed to professional athletes. A complaint was brought in July 2025 by the French players’ union before the European Committee of Social Rights.
In addition, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) has issued guidelines for the protection of professional athletes, and the international players’ union has continued to present evidence relating to player welfare. These suggest that football may be approaching a significant regulatory turning point.
Fifa’s abandoned private equity proposal was not the problem in itself, but a symptom of a wider economic model in which commercial growth depends upon an ever-expanding football calendar. The central question is whether that model is compatible with the legal and ethical obligation to protect the health, safety and wellbeing of the players on whom the game ultimately depends.
More please…
Investors in football, such as the owners of Premier League clubs or sponsors and broadcasters, desire growth, which can be generated by further exploitation of the existing product or by expanding the number of games. It is this latter approach that has occurred at both international level through Fifa and European level by Uefa as both seek to maximise financial opportunities.
The 2026 Fifa World Cup increased from 32 to 48 teams, creating more fixtures, greater broadcasting opportunities and additional commercial revenue. This mirrored the approach of the 2025 Fifa Club World Cup, expanding the tournament from seven clubs to 32. Uefa has also presided over a significant enlargement in club football competitions, moving from a simple knockout tournament to an expanded league system involving far more teams and fixtures.
While expansion is often justified in terms of greater sporting opportunity, increased global participation or enhanced fan engagement, it also reflects the economic reality that growth depends ever more upon creating more matches to sell.
The consequences extend beyond the clubs participating in these competitions. Additional European fixtures compress domestic calendars, reduce recovery periods and increase travel demands on players. They also affect supporters, with domestic fixtures progressively scheduled to accommodate broadcasting requirements rather than traditional match-going times.
The expansion of competitions has fundamentally altered the workload of elite footballers. The issue is no longer simply the number of matches played but the cumulative demands created by congested calendars, global travel and longer periods spent on the pitch. The 2022 World Cup saw stoppage time recalculated, leading to a significant increase in playing time – a principle later extended into domestic leagues.
For leading players, the traditional off-season has become progressively shorter, while recovery periods between matches have been reduced as domestic, continental and international competitions compete for space within an already crowded calendar.
The travel issue is exacerbated for players who represent countries outside Europe but play their club football there. For example, Argentina’s Enzo Fernandez accumulated 195 hours of travel during 29 journeys, spanning 149,010 kilometres in one season.
A workers’ rights approach
It seems odd to discuss highly paid elite footballers in the context of a traditional health and safety framework. But despite their huge paycheques, professional footballers are still employees whose work involves identifiable physical and psychological risks. Employers and governing bodies have a clear legal duty to manage risks and reduce harm. The recent legal challenges and regulatory pressure reflect a more traditional workplace approach.
The recent ILO guidelines for professional athletes explicitly recognise the importance of rest and recovery periods as central to managing occupational health and safety risks. The footballer’s union, Fifpro’s Medical Position Statement on Minimum Player Workload Safeguards outlines recommendations focusing on recovery periods, off-season breaks and protections for young players.
The increased workload issue is evident across the game. At the top end of the women’s game, leading players have averaged over 50 games in a season, with some reaching around 60 matches. This workload is exacerbated by the number of games played within short time-frames. At the other end of the spectrum, players outside of the elite suffer from insufficient game opportunities. As the women’s game grows in popularity, the pressure to schedule more games at club and international level is likely to increase, creating similar problems to the men’s game.
The controversy surrounding Fifa’s now abandoned private equity proposal was much more than an investment issue. It has highlighted a broader commercial model in which continued financial growth depends upon creating more of the same. The expansion of the game to facilitate increased commercial exploitation cannot continue without serious impact on those who deliver the spectacle. Addressing player welfare requires a change of approach where health and wellbeing are prioritised over the economic proposition of more games.
Steve Greenfield does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.