Under fire: Gianni Infantino, president of football's world governing body, Fifa. Jose Breton/Pics Action/ShutterstockFootball’s world governing body, Fifa, has come under fire for attempting to “sell the World Cup”. Its president, Gianni Infantino, had plans to sell a stake in future World Cup profits to investors, with substantial incentives offered to member associations if they backed the proposal.Europe’s confederation, Uefa, made clear that “none of us are the owners of football”. At the same time, fan organisation Football Supporters Europe and players’ union FifPro Europe said the sport should remain in the hands of the public.The game’s potential privatisation has shaken leadership at the top of football. An open letter to the “football family” by Uefa, Concacaf (the confederation spanning North and Central America and the Caribbean) and the Asian Football Confederation called for Infantino to be held to account. They demanded that Fifa should have a “leadership that serves football, not seeks to command it”.This pushback has come despite US president Donald Trump’s very public support for Infantino. It begs the question: who does sport actually belong to?The inner workings of sportAs businesses, sports organisations fundamentally differ from many other industries. They rarely act as a single business – rather, different arms such as entertainment, charity and the development of elite athletes all combine in the name of competition.This can create friction between the more commercial and more charitable aspects, as making money and serving the community do not always align.Most team sports are monopolistic in nature, with many fans supporting only one club and national team. This means there are often limited alternatives for committed fans, giving those sports’ organisations free rein.In industries such as electricity or transport, monopolies are heavily regulated to ensure that consumers are not taken advantage of. But this is rarely the case in sport. This can open the door to privatisation, which has had mixed effects in different sports.Liv Golf, a men’s professional golf tour founded in 2022, disrupted the global golf industry because it provided better payouts for players than existing organisations like the PGA Tour and DP World Tour. However, Liv Golf has struggled financially, in part due to this approach.In contrast, Formula One’s fortunes were revived, both in terms of finances and viewership, after private equity came in and it partnered with Netflix. Lifting its previous restrictions on drivers’ social media use helped secure more sponsorships as visibility improved.Ultimately, despite privatisation showing some benefits, spectators often react poorly to the suggestion of its introduction.Give and takePrivatisation can affect everything from ticket prices, limiting who can enjoy the sport, to participation fees for playing at grassroots level. This is why we have seen fan protests in Germany in 2024, when private investment into the Bundesliga (Germany’s top professional football league) was announced, and in the UK when plans for a European Super League were floated in 2021.Sporting organisations ignite strong feelings in their consumers. Fans throw their support behind both national and local club sides in ways more akin to religious or political convictions than a business customer would ever do.Fans often view their clubs as community assets, while owners typically focus on making returns on their investments. Inevitably, making profit and spending money on good causes are at odds for those in power.As a result, we are seeing more competition law and other cases being brought against sporting authorities, when either individuals or organisations disagree with decisions on how their sport is run. This can extend to the application of rules too – like the controversy over US player Folarin Balogan’s red card in the 2026 World Cup being rescinded, supposedly following Trump’s call to Infantino. Infantino and US president Donald Trump are believed to have a close relationship. A. Ricardo/ Shutterstock To improve governance, women, athletes and fans have all demanded a bigger say in running governing bodies.Corporations, too, are changing how they get involved in sport, with sponsorship deals shifting towards partnerships that create shared value. We have seen sponsors flocking to women’s sport or breaking partnerships when governance failures come to light. This is because, in sponsors’ eyes, fans, viewers and employees all have a lot of power in the business of sport.Selling the family silverIf fans and players are so important, why is sport for sale? The answer, particularly at governing body level, is that good causes and facilities cost money. You need pitches or courts, bikes or sails, referees and coaches, safeguarding and training to allow sport to happen.Administrators are widely seen as custodians of the sport they have invested in financially. This is the view taken in the UK’s Football Governance Act 2025, which brought in an independent regulator to protect the financial sustainability of clubs “for the benefit of fans and the local communities that football clubs serve”.If you are a popular sport organisation, spend more than you make and do not have cash to pay your debts, you can become insolvent. This is why some sports, such as Formula One, rugby and golf, privatise aspects of their organisation.But nobody sells the family silver unless it’s become worthless, or they desperately need to sell part of it to survive. In the case of Fifa, with ample cash in the bank, there was no apparent need. As Uefa lamented: “Some things are simply too important to sell.”Christina Philippou is affiliated with the RAF FA. She is a member of Women in Football's membership committee and has also provided consultancy/education services to the Premier League, the LMA, UEFA and the PFA.