Published by Osasere Edomwonyi Ikpoba
FIFA has accused UEFA of orchestrating a “smear campaign” against the world governing body and its president, Gianni Infantino, as the bitter dispute over a scrapped multi-billion-dollar plan to sell stakes in the World Cup to private investors escalates into a full-blown legal and political war.
The latest escalation came after UEFA filed legal papers in the United States last week, requesting courts in three states to force FIFA and its partners to hand over documents and testimony relating to the FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE), a proposed subsidiary that would have brought outside investors into the commercial rights of major FIFA competitions, including the World Cup. The European governing body has alleged that the FFE proposal was developed without proper consultation with FIFA’s Council, regional confederations, or its 211 member associations. UEFA has also questioned the valuation and structure of the proposed investment, accusing Infantino of potentially benefiting personally from the arrangement and promoting a “fraudulently off-market price for his own benefit”.
UEFA has made no secret of its ultimate goal: to use the information gathered in the United States to support potential criminal proceedings in Switzerland against Infantino and other FIFA officials or advisers. The European body has accused Infantino of “criminal mismanagement” over the now-shelved scheme. Last week, it filed requests in Florida, New York, and Colorado seeking to subpoena those involved with FFE, including prospective lead investor Joshua Kushner’s Thrive Capital firm, adviser J.P. Morgan, and Greg Maffei of BANN Ventures. UEFA said it has been assured that any case it brings in Switzerland would meet the requirements to be heard in a Swiss court.
FIFA, however, has hit back aggressively. In a series of court filings lodged in the US this week, the world governing body has requested that judges oppose UEFA’s applications, arguing that the European body lacks the legal standing and authority to demand FIFA’s internal documents. “While these applications are styled as legal pleadings with captions and docket numbers, they are little more than press releases in further support of UEFA’s smear campaign against FIFA and its leadership,” FIFA said in its filings. The governing body stressed that FFE was “only a proposal” that could not have proceeded without support from FIFA’s member associations and the necessary approval of the FIFA Council. FIFA accused UEFA of choosing a public confrontation rather than participating in the organisation’s formal decision-making process.
The FFE proposal was abandoned in late July after strong opposition from UEFA and other football stakeholders, just days after it was unveiled. The plan had envisaged private investors taking a 20 per cent stake in a new FIFA commercial entity, with an investment of about $4.2 billion (£3.1 billion) proposed. Under Infantino’s plan, Thrive and Kushner were to be the anchor investors, intending to pay FIFA $4.2 billion for a 20 per cent stake in a subsidiary that would run the soccer body’s commercial events. The proposal sparked a furious global backlash, with UEFA threatening to boycott the World Cup unless the plan was scrapped. UEFA said none of its national teams would participate in any FIFA competition “for so long as these proposals remain alive”.
Despite the proposal’s swift abandonment, the controversy has continued to simmer. UEFA has kept up the pressure, and last week it finally withdrew its boycott threat after FIFA provided written guarantees that it would never again pursue any plan to sell World Cup equity. But the European body has not relented in its pursuit of Infantino. The legal battle has now shifted from the proposed investment itself to the circumstances surrounding its creation, the governance process inside FIFA, and whether any individuals involved stood to benefit from the abandoned scheme.
In its court filings, FIFA has also accused UEFA of pursuing a “fishing expedition” and illegally bypassing Swiss courts by applying directly to US courts. FIFA argued that UEFA does not have the right to demand its internal documents because no criminal proceedings yet exist in Switzerland or elsewhere. Even if such proceedings did exist, FIFA said, UEFA would not have legal standing because it has suffered no financial loss. The world governing body also claimed that disclosure of the documents, including correspondence involving Infantino and other named FIFA personnel and advisors, “would directly threaten FIFA’s interests and reveal sensitive and proprietary information”.
Beyond the legal arguments, FIFA has offered a striking political interpretation of UEFA’s motivation. In its filing, FIFA claimed that UEFA’s “economic motivation” was to prevent smaller countries from having the “financial strength to compete with the European elite”. “If soccer is strengthened in the developing world, global competition increases, which ultimately reduces UEFA’s market power and provides more competition for its flagship tournaments,” FIFA wrote. The filing further argued that FFE would have allowed smaller member associations to better develop soccer, leading to more players from those nations representing their countries of origin rather than playing abroad.
The dispute has also become increasingly political ahead of FIFA’s presidential election in March 2027, when Infantino is expected to seek a fourth and final term. UEFA and several European associations have intensified their criticism of his leadership, while Infantino continues to retain significant support among football bodies outside Europe. UEFA may have been the harshest critic—it described his proposal as a “shady, opaque backroom deal”—but it has found solid support from North and Central America’s CONCACAF and the Asian Football Confederation (AFC). CONCACAF president Victor Montagliani is widely seen as the likeliest challenger to Infantino, while UEFA’s Aleksander Ceferin has ruled himself out. The three confederations have kept up the pressure and collaborated on a no-holds-barred joint letter issued earlier last month. “Leadership in football is not a possession. It is not about holding—or demanding—power to be held,” they wrote. UEFA added: “FIFA must once again be governed as an institution serving football – not operate as an instrument of individual power”.
Meanwhile, Kushner, whose investment fund was involved, released a statement on Monday expressing regret over his involvement. He said he and Thrive “stand behind the motivations of FFE” but “failed to appreciate the political dynamics of global football, and the lengths some would go to”. “Had we known what this would devolve into, we would not have gotten involved,” Kushner said.
FIFA and UEFA are now bracing for a protracted legal showdown in the United States courts. With the FFE proposal officially abandoned, the focus will shift to how a judge handles the disclosure requests involving Infantino and the American investors. The intense rivalry between Infantino and Ceferin is likely to dominate the political landscape as both organisations prepare for upcoming international tournaments. For now, the battle lines are drawn, and the world of football is watching to see who will emerge victorious from this bitter power struggle.
📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com
✉️ info@stonereportersnews.com | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters News | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @stonereportersnews
Add comment
Comments