This year’s World Cup was the most profitable in FIFA’s history, as Gianni Infantino had promised. FIFA’s own figures put the 2026 tournament’s revenue at roughly $9 billion to $13 billion, well above the $11 billion FIFA had forecast before the event. Revenue across FIFA’s full 2023–2026 cycle, which includes the Club World Cup and Women’s World Cup alongside the men’s tournament, is on track to top $15 billion. Infantino said that result showed the tournament had “opened a lot of doors, a lot of opportunities, a lot of possibilities.” That is roughly double the $7.5 billion FIFA brought in during the 2022 Qatar cycle.

Now Infantino wants more. FIFA is reportedly studying whether to expand the 2030 World Cup from 48 to 64 teams. The vehicle is a plan called FIFA Forward Enterprise, announced nine days after the record-setting tournament closed, and it is why the European contingent, which has won more World Cups than any other confederation, is now threatening to sit out the next one.

That revenue came with costs falling largely on someone else. As Fortune has reported, FIFA’s contracts assigned security, transportation and stadium retrofits to host cities, while keeping the revenue from tickets, sponsorship and media for itself. The structure has put new attention on how FIFA shares tournament proceeds with its 211 member associations, especially as smaller federations often rely on FIFA support for basic operating costs.

A $40 million incentive to accept

European teams have won more than half, 13, of the 23 men’s World Cups played since 1930. Europe has won four of the last five titles and seven of the last ten, including this summer’s, when Spain beat Argentina in the final. European teams currently hold six of FIFA’s top 10 men’s world rankings and accounted for six of the eight quarterfinalists and three of the four semifinalists at this year’s tournament.

So when FIFA restructured the World Cup this year — assigning security, transportation and stadium retrofits to host cities while keeping the revenue from tickets, sponsorship and media for itself — a good portion of that huge profit went back to FIFA, and the costs often fell on someone else, including this year’s 16 host cities. That backdrop helps explain why the current dispute is about more than one investment proposal: it is also about who bears the costs of FIFA’s expanding business model and who gets to approve the next step.

FIFA revealed the FFE proposal on July 28: a commercial subsidiary valued at $20 billion that would remain under FIFA’s control while selling minority stakes to outside investors, raising up to $4.2 billion and paying each of FIFA’s 211 member associations up to $40 million. Thrive Capital, founded by Jared Kushner’s brother Joshua, is expected to lead the investor group.

FIFA set September 19 as the deadline for members to accept the deal, which needs 75% support to pass. Initially, Infantino offered $20 million per association to accept the deal, but then doubled it to $40 million the next day after backlash began. That is especially notable because many of FIFA’s 211 member associations rely on FIFA funding in the first place, making the $40 million incentive difficult to ignore.

Many of FIFA’s member associations depend on FIFA funding just to keep operating. Smaller federations often use FIFA Forward money to cover basic costs such as coaching programs, youth development and administrative overhead. Against that backdrop, Infantino’s initial $20 million offer, then his doubling of it to $40 million within a single day of the backlash beginning, is not a mere bonus. For federations already leaning on FIFA’s support, it is the kind of money that is hard to walk away from on principle alone.

An imminent showdown

Critics say that is exactly what makes the structure look less like a genuine consultation and more like leverage. The Union of European Football Associations, or UEFA, Europe’s official governing body for soccer, manages 55 national member associations and runs major sporting tournaments of its own. UEFA has called the arrangement “governance by intimidation” rather than a legitimate vote, saying FIFA did not simply propose a plan and ask members to weigh in. Instead, it attached a large, time-limited payment to a September 19 deadline, effectively pressuring cash-strapped federations to sign on before they had time to fully assess what they would be trading away.

As a result, UEFA said its members will boycott the men’s and women’s World Cup unless FIFA drops the plan, calling it “not merely a profound failure of leadership, but an abdication of FIFA’s duty as the custodian of world football.”

“So long as Europe has a voice, it will never be for sale.”

The backlash has not stopped there. CONCACAF, the Confederation of North, Central America and Caribbean Association Football and one of FIFA’s six continental governing bodies, called it a “lack of due process.” The Asian Football Confederation said it was “disappointed” it had not been consulted, and the EU’s sport commissioner, Glenn Micallef, posted: “Hands off our game.”

The plan also cost Infantino an ally. Per CNN, senior advisor Carlos Cordeiro resigned, calling it “a bad deal for FIFA’s Member Associations, a bad deal for football, and a bad deal for the long-term future of the game.”

Infantino defended the plan as “an opportunity but not an obligation.” FIFA said “nobody is selling football” and blamed “erroneous reporting” for the uproar.

It is a familiar move for Thrive. The firm built much of Kushner’s fortune on an early, concentrated bet on OpenAI, investing first at a $29 billion valuation, then at $86 billion, then roughly $1 billion more at $150 billion as OpenAI’s value climbed toward $500 billion. Kushner is known for concentrated bets rather than spreading capital thin. The FFE proposal extends that same approach from a fast-growing startup to global soccer’s flagship event.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com