Someone is going to have to take issue with @gerardtbaker in @thetimes today. So let’s start with the big lie That opposing a sale of the World Cup to private equity is just a typical British/EU anti-growth hysteria Even though he admits there’s little to like about Gianni + less to like about FIFA In massively underplaying FIFA’s client/charity cash release structure that is open to massive corruption, he is able to avoid issue No.1 + quickly move on to why the scheme is actually a brilliant wheeze. But Gianni (+ FIFA) is the problem! The system is wholly corruptible (and given FIFA’s history, likely is corrupt) Fish rots from head down So let’s deal with scheme itself. Why would FIFA be selling itself (essentially FIFA is nothing without men’s World Cup) so cheap? What motive could there be to hand over control (20% =control if you understand FIFA) of WC for money up front now + paltry returns in 2038? Men’s World Cup turned over $7.7bn in 2022 and $15bn in 2026. So revenue is x2 over 4 years but now we need some special people (coincidentally related by marriage to Trump) to help us max revenues? If there’s so much unrealised capital upside, why give away this golden goose? If Joshua Kushner (Gianni’s partner) is such a magic man + can make so much more money, just hire him and keep the IP, admin + profits in house? (alternative explanation: Joshua has limited talent + no special magic beans to make the revenue tree grow. But his special gift is proximity to power to gather up valuable assets on cheap + leverage them for future gain for family) Here’s Joshua’s big plan in full: charge $10k per ticket per match and $100k for the final. That’s it. TV + sponsorship revenue will rise but not enough to satisfy private equity. It’s all in ratcheting up ticket prices. As per @SophiaCai99 people close to the Kushner investment crew have deduced that in a world of AI + tech ‘live sporting events will become an even hotter ticket’ That’s the genius they’re bringing to the table is ‘We can get people to pay more for this. Especially in the USA’ But the crucial bit in 21st century capitalism (as opposed to useful capitalism) is; ‘We have proximity to the people who own this + so can fix the deal at a very low price so we can all get rich’ But the part that *really* annoyed me in Baker’s analysis … ‘In just about every field it has entered, capitalism has a track record of being extraordinarily good not only at maximising the money on the table but at deploying it effectively and generating vast additional multiples from it’ Let’s acknowledge that the free market can bring efficiency and do good. For example, FIFA could sell 20%, raise cash + fix ticket prices til 2038 so that this life giving festival is accesible to more than the ultra rich There are times when PE money brings growth, necessary investment, added quality But in most 21st century prívate equity plays, life has got worse for consumers. Thames Water, Man Utd - these are bywords for corporate greed It’s summed up in Kraft’s takeover (LBO) of debt free Cadbury’s in 2010 Cadbury’s was founded by imperfect billionaires who, yes, got ‘filthy rich’ but who avoided using slave labour + also built Bourneville model village so workers had decent housing, access to education, health care, green space Kraft bought it, placed massive debt on the company, closed down the UK factory, made the product worse + put up prices Yes capitalism can do some good. But so much PE investment - vets, dentists, foster care - just means lower quality and higher prices. Because Thatcherism never had a mechanism for controlling unbridled greed So here we are in 2026 + private equity is a dirty word. I wish it weren’t so. But it is the case. Especially in THIS case. So forgive us, Gerard, if we don’t buy the lie one more time