The battle between UEFA and FIFA president, Gianni Infantino, seems to be far from being finished. This stems from the latter's attempt to sell a stake of the World Cup to private investors.
UEFA's goal is to remove Infantino from his position. Their latest act is to open criminal proceedings against the president.
The war between world and European football's governing bodies is no longer a battle for influence behind closed doors. UEFA have detonated the biggest legal bombshell in the history of the game; launching direct criminal proceedings against Gianni Infantino and FIFA itself.
The charge against the FIFA president comes down to this: attempting to sell the world's most sacred tournaments, the men's and women's World Cups, to private investors in a secret deal woven in the dark for more than a year, without anyone's knowledge.
UEFA has dramatically escalated its confrontation with FIFA president Gianni Infantino, with the European governing body preparing to pursue possible criminal proceedings over his controversial plan to sell a stake in FIFA’s World Cup-related commercial assets to private investors.
Also Read: Power. Money. Football. In That Order
The development is contained in legal filings submitted in the United States, where UEFA is seeking access to documents and communications that it says could help build a potential criminal case against Infantino and other FIFA officials.
According to the filings, UEFA and its lawyers are considering proceedings under Article 158 of the Swiss Criminal Code, relating to alleged criminal mismanagement. UEFA says the case could extend beyond Infantino to other FIFA officials and advisers depending on what emerges from the evidence.
The legal escalation centers on the now-abandoned FIFA Forward Enterprise proposal, which would've involved private investors acquiring a 20% stake in a FIFA subsidiary responsible for the commercial exploitation of major competitions, including the World Cup.
The proposed transaction was reportedly valued at around $4.2 billion, with US investment firm, Thrive Capital, founded by Joshua Kushner, identified as a key potential investor. UEFA has questioned the valuation and the process through which the proposal was developed, arguing that the figure was not established through an open competitive process or independent valuation.
UEFA has now turned to US courts to obtain information from entities connected to the proposed transaction. The filings include requests for documents from FIFA’s US operations and from Thrive Capital, with the information potentially being used in proceedings in Switzerland.
This represents a major escalation in the already bitter relationship between UEFA and FIFA.
The dispute erupted after Infantino’s plan triggered widespread opposition from European football. UEFA’s 55 member associations had threatened to boycott FIFA competitions in protest; while UEFA president Aleksander Čeferin publicly called on Infantino to step down or face a challenge to his presidency.
Although FIFA ultimately abandoned the sell-off proposal following the backlash, UEFA’s decision to keep pursuing information suggests the withdrawal of the plan has not ended the dispute.
In fact, UEFA now appears determined to establish how the proposal was conceived, valued, financed and presented to FIFA’s member associations.
The legal filings reportedly raise questions about the proposed financial inducements offered to FIFA’s 211 member associations in connection with the plan. The Times reported that associations were offered additional funding and the proposal allegedly required them to decide within a compressed timeframe.
For Infantino, the timing could hardly be more significant.
The FIFA president is seeking to retain his position ahead of the next presidential election. Still, his leadership has come under increasing pressure following the collapse of the World Cup commercialisation proposal.
Opposition has emerged from UEFA and other influential football regions, while several national associations have withdrawn their support for his re-election.
UEFA has not yet brought a criminal case against Infantino.
The current filings indicate that it is preparing and considering such proceedings while seeking evidence through US courts. Infantino has not been convicted of any offense, and the allegations contained in UEFA’s filings remain allegations.
Nevertheless, the development marks one of the most serious confrontations between the two governing bodies in recent football history.
What began as a battle over the commercial future of the World Cup has now moved into the legal arena potentially putting Infantino’s leadership, FIFA’s governance model and the future of football’s commercial structure under unprecedented scrutiny.
With UEFA seeking documents that could ultimately be used in Switzerland, the fight over Infantino’s World Cup sell-off plan may be far from over.
On Wednesday evening, 24 hours ahead of the UEFA Champions League draw, European football's leading lights gathered at Le Meridien Beach Plaza, the only hotel in Monaco with a private beach; for the annual kick-off barbecue.
It was, in every way, the proverbial calm before the storm. By lunchtime on Thursday, UEFA would unleash two unexpected (but connected) legal assaults in two different jurisdictions directed squarely at FIFA president Gianni Infantino. Nobody was dropping hints.
Instead, UEFA officials, who had previously pledged to boycott FIFA competitions as a result of Infantino's private equity proposal; were keen to explain they had dropped their boycott less than two weeks before the first tournament that would have been affected, the Under-20 Women's World Cup in Poland.
Multiple sources have said that Europe's governing body didn't want to deny young women the opportunity to play (or postpone) it and that they had achieved their objective of stopping Infantino's ill-fated FIFA Forward Enterprise.
It felt the collective dissent had led to the plan being scrapped and, according to UEFA, had received "legal guarantees" from FIFA that such a proposal - selling all or part of FIFA's revenue streams to private investors - would never be considered again.
When challenged on what "legal guarantees" meant - How would they be enforced? Would they be written into FIFA's bylaws? - several UEFA officials simply said the equivalent of 'well, if worse comes to worse, we'll pull out of the World Cup, making it worthless, and [Infantino] will have no choice but to drop any such plans.'
On a muggy, sticky Monaco late-summer night, you couldn't help but suspect that there was something else at play; even though those in the know were giving away nothing. Twelve hours later, we found out just what it was.
On Thursday morning, UEFA filed court documents in the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Florida and prepared a claim in Switzerland, where FIFA and UEFA are both based. The former, a Section 1782 request, asks the court to compel a potential defendant to be subjected to a discovery process, releasing troves of evidence including phone records, emails and other documents. The latter, under Article 158 of the Swiss Criminal Code, alleges "criminal mismanagement" and carries a maximum custodial sentence of five years.
While UEFA had floated the possibility of legal action - earlier this month, it asked FIFA to ensure that no documents were destroyed - few predicted this body blow just a few hours after the "legal guarantees" negotiation; which many had seen as a temporary truce, if not a reconciliation.
Instead, Infantino's opponents are as determined as ever, sources say, and they're acting with the support of significant portions - as well as the leadership - of the Asian Confederation and Concacaf, which represents North America, Central America and the Caribbean.
The core of the criminal complaint in Switzerland rests on the way Infantino attempted to push through his proposal to spin off FIFA's commercial operation and sell 20% of it to a group of private equity investors, led by Joshua Kushner's Thrive Capital.
It is expected to allege that Infantino violated fiduciary duties by negotiating in secret with Thrive Capital, by not consulting with FIFA Council members and, most of all, by agreeing to a $20 billion valuation of FIFA.
The complaint suggests this severely undervalues FIFA - which reported revenues of $15 billion for the 2023-2026 cycle, culminating in this summer's World Cup - and that the fact that it wasn't put to tender, meaning no other bids were solicited, is hugely problematic.
The separate filing in Florida, where FIFA moved some of its commercial and legal operations ahead of the World Cup, is designed to compel "interested persons" to release evidence in a foreign criminal proceeding, just as they would need to do if it were a U.S. case.
It's possible, of course, that the Swiss court will find no wrongdoing or take ages to come to a conclusion, by which stage (like the FIFA presidential election next March) such matters could be moot. But several ESPN sources, and one legal source who did not wish to be identified because they might become involved in the case at a later stage, explained why this isn't necessarily relevant.
The Section 1782 request in Florida applies to "criminal investigations conducted before formal accusations" as well. In other words, even if the Swiss case is never brought in front of a judge, the Florida court can order the release for discovery purposes of FIFA documents and communications.
That alone would be a huge win for Infantino's opponents. At that point, the FIFA Council could credibly call for an independent review on the basis that if there was a criminal case to answer, the organization itself -- and by extension, the Council members -- might be at risk of prosecution.
UEFA officials said they feel they are on solid ground in terms of the Florida court granting their Section 1782 request, sources said but they do acknowledge it's not a slam dunk. More than one said there was a risk of political pressure being brought to bear given Infantino's links to the U.S. President Donald Trump but even that scenario would again force Infantino to be on the defensive.
It would mean more time spent defending himself and summoning lawyers to fight off challenges in Florida and Switzerland; which means less time he's able to spend on the campaign trial in trying to rally member associations to support him in the March election.
UEFA issued a statement on Thursday urging Infantino not to seek another mandate and reiterating that if he decides to run again, the governing body will work with other confederations to find a "a credible alternative - one committed to integrity, accountability, development and genuine institutional change." Candidates have until 18 November to submit paperwork.
It's not going to be news to Infantino, who is well aware that he is under attack on multiple fronts. The legal proceedings against him might not stop him but they will - at a minimum - slow him down, certainly enough to derail his globe-trotting campaign and his chances for re-election.
It's pretty evident that UEFA is serious and it still has the finger on the "nuclear button" - withdrawing from senior FIFA competitions. The next one is FIFA's Intercontinental Cup in December but that concerns only one club, Paris Saint Germain (and the fact that the club is owned by Qatar Sports Investments, a state-backed private investment fund that has formally endorsed Infantino, makes it a firm maybe).
The competition after that one is big: the 2027 Women's World Cup. Committing to a boycott ahead of the FIFA elections if Infantino is chosen in March remains the biggest weapon in the arsenal of his opponents: you'd imagine UEFA would be joined by Concacaf and AFC, or at least some of the bigger nations in those confederations that have called for his removal.
Multiple UEFA officials have said that while it would be a last-ditch measure, they are prepared to go through with it if all other options are exhausted.
I don't see anything else happening from the legal view. While I'm all for Infantino to leave the role, legal issues can take forever to settle and the verdict might become moot by then.
For me, the best course of action to take is boycotting FIFA organised events.