Elon Musk’s net worth has surged to an estimated $749 billion, putting him within striking distance of the $1 trillion threshold even before the separate $1 trillion pay package Tesla shareholders approved earlier this year.

The dramatic jump followed a landmark ruling by the Delaware Supreme Court on Friday, which reinstated Tesla stock options now valued at about $139 billion that had been voided by a lower court in 2024, according to Forbes’ billionaires index.

The ruling restored Musk’s 2018 CEO compensation plan, a milestone-based package that was initially valued at about $56 billion when it was granted but ballooned in value as Tesla’s share price soared. The court said rescinding the pay plan outright was an excessive remedy and unfair to Musk, effectively ending a years-long shareholder lawsuit that had cast uncertainty over one of the largest executive pay deals in corporate history.

But the significance of the decision goes far beyond the revived options themselves. It highlights just how close Musk already is to becoming the world’s first trillionaire based on existing assets alone, without factoring in the eye-watering future compensation Tesla has put on the table.

Musk’s wealth trajectory over the past decade has been unlike anything seen before. As recently as 2012, his net worth was estimated at under $10 billion, largely tied to his stakes in Tesla and SpaceX. Tesla’s rise from a niche electric vehicle maker into one of the world’s most valuable companies fundamentally altered that picture. Between 2019 and 2021, as Tesla shares surged more than tenfold, Musk vaulted past Jeff Bezos to become the world’s richest person, a position he has since cemented with a widening lead.

Tesla remains the single largest contributor to Musk’s fortune. His roughly 13% stake in the company, combined with stock options from the reinstated 2018 plan, accounts for several hundred billion dollars of his net worth. Even during periods of volatility in Tesla’s share price, Musk has retained enormous paper gains, underscoring how deeply his personal wealth is leveraged to the company’s equity performance.

SpaceX has emerged as the second major engine of Musk’s financial ascent. Valued privately at about $800 billion in recent funding rounds, the rocket and satellite company has become the most valuable private aerospace firm in the world. Reports early this month that SpaceX is edging closer to an initial public offering pushed Musk’s net worth past $600 billion for the first time, even before the Delaware ruling was handed down. A public listing of SpaceX, even a partial one, could unlock tens or hundreds of billions of dollars in additional value for Musk.

Beyond Tesla and SpaceX, Musk controls or holds significant stakes in xAI, Neuralink, and The Boring Company. While these ventures are smaller in valuation today, investors increasingly view them as long-term options on artificial intelligence, brain-computer interfaces, and next-generation infrastructure. In particular, xAI has benefited from the broader AI investment frenzy, adding yet another growth lever to Musk’s already sprawling empire.

Taken together, these assets mean Musk is already approaching the $1 trillion net worth milestone on paper, even without counting the new compensation framework Tesla shareholders approved in November. That plan, described as the largest corporate pay package ever proposed, could ultimately be worth around $1 trillion if Tesla hits a series of extremely ambitious market capitalization, revenue, and operational targets over the coming years. Importantly, those targets are additive, meaning they sit on top of Musk’s existing equity and wealth rather than replacing it.

In effect, the approved package positions Musk to potentially move far beyond the trillion-dollar mark if Tesla succeeds in executing his vision of transforming the company into a dominant force in artificial intelligence, robotics, and autonomous systems. Investors who backed the plan signaled that they see Musk not merely as an automaker CEO, but as the architect of a platform company whose future value could dwarf today’s valuations.

The Delaware Supreme Court’s decision also carries broader implications for Musk’s financial future. By rejecting the rescission of a shareholder-approved pay package, the ruling strengthens Musk’s hand in defending unconventional compensation structures tied to long-term performance. It also reassures markets that the legal risks surrounding his past pay have largely been cleared, removing a major overhang from Tesla’s governance narrative.

However, critics continue to argue that Musk’s wealth concentration and influence pose risks to corporate accountability and market stability. But supporters counter that his fortune is the product of extraordinary value creation, pointing to Tesla’s transformation of the global auto industry and SpaceX’s dominance in commercial spaceflight.

What is no longer in dispute is the scale of Musk’s financial ascent. With a net worth now pushing $750 billion, multiple high-growth assets still private, and a separate $1 trillion pay framework waiting in the wings, Musk stands closer than anyone in modern history to crossing the trillionaire threshold. This milestone once seemed implausible, but now looks increasingly within reach.

The Africa Cup of Nations (AFCON) will in future be staged every four years rather than every two, a landmark shift announced on Saturday by the Confederation of African Football (CAF) that reshapes the continent’s flagship tournament, its finances, and its long-running tensions with the global football calendar.

The decision has been widely welcomed across the football world, particularly in Europe, where coaches and clubs have long complained about losing key African players in the middle of domestic seasons.

The decision, announced on Saturday by CAF president Patrice Motsepe after an executive committee meeting in Rabat, Morocco, represents a major recalibration of African football’s calendar and commercial strategy. It also brings long-awaited relief to a dispute that has simmered for decades between African national teams and European clubs.

Under the new framework, the next AFCON will still hold in 2027, co-hosted by Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda, followed by another edition in 2028. From then on, the tournament will be staged every four years. To avoid a long gap in competitive fixtures and revenue, CAF plans to introduce an African Nations League from 2029, to be played annually.

For European clubs, the shift addresses a recurring source of tension. AFCON has traditionally been held during the European season, often in January and February, forcing clubs to release African players at crucial points in league campaigns, cup competitions, and continental tournaments. Managers have regularly complained that the timing disrupts squad planning and competitive balance, especially for clubs heavily reliant on African talent.

This has made AFCON a frequent flashpoint between clubs and national federations. While European Championships and the World Cup are played during the off-season, African players have often had to choose between club commitments and national duty at moments when their teams needed them most.

The new four-year cycle is expected to ease those pressures. By moving away from a congested and unpredictable schedule, CAF is signaling a willingness to align more closely with the global football calendar.

Motsepe said the reform was driven in large part by concern for players caught in the middle.

“It is in the interests of the teams, clubs and players,” he said. “I can’t have players leaving their clubs in Europe in the mid-season. It’s wrong. We’ve got a duty to the players. We know how frustrating it is for the players when their club says they are needed but they are also needed for the country. It’s unfair to the players.”

Coaches in Europe have quietly welcomed the announcement, seeing it as a step toward greater stability and fairness. Over the years, several high-profile managers have voiced frustration about losing players to AFCON during decisive stretches of the season, sometimes affecting title races or relegation battles. While few clubs openly oppose the tournament, many have argued that Africa’s flagship competition should not place its players at a structural disadvantage compared with their counterparts from Europe or South America.

The timing of AFCON has been a long-standing challenge even within Africa. CAF attempted to resolve the issue by shifting the tournament to mid-year from 2019, but climate conditions and scheduling conflicts repeatedly forced reversals. The 2022 edition in Cameroon and the 2024 tournament in the Ivory Coast were both held at the start of the year, reigniting club-versus-country tensions. This year’s tournament in Morocco was itself moved back by six months after FIFA introduced an expanded Club World Cup in June and July.

Financial considerations also played a central role in the decision. AFCON accounts for an estimated 80% of CAF’s revenue, making it the confederation’s single most important commercial asset. That dependence previously made CAF resistant to proposals, including from FIFA president Gianni Infantino, to reduce the tournament’s frequency. The introduction of an African Nations League is intended to plug that revenue gap by creating a new, regular source of broadcast and sponsorship income.

“Historically the Nations Cup was the prime resource for us, but now we will get financial resources every year,” Motsepe said. “It is an exciting new structure which will contribute to sustainable financial independence and ensure more synchronization with the FIFA calendar.”

CAF has also sweetened the immediate transition with increased prize money. The winners of the ongoing tournament in Morocco will earn $10 million, up from $7 million awarded to the Ivory Coast at the last edition, signaling an effort to keep AFCON commercially attractive even as its frequency changes.

While some purists may worry that a four-year cycle could dilute the tournament’s presence, many stakeholders see the reform as overdue. It promises fewer mid-season disruptions for European clubs and coaches, while for players, it offers relief from having to navigate conflicting loyalties.