FIFA has accused UEFA of orchestrating a “misinformation campaign and attempting to sway the upcoming FIFA presidential election, urging a U.S. court to reject a discovery request connected to a controversial and now-shelved investment proposal for World Cup commercial rights. In a filing on Monday in the Southern District of Florida, FIFA responded to UEFA’s motion asking a federal judge to authorise testimony and document production for use in a planned criminal complaint in Switzerland against FIFA President Gianni Infantino. The underlying dispute concerns FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE), a proposed subsidiary that would have held the commercial rights to World Cup tournaments and sought outside investment. UEFA had approached the U.S. court under a legal provision that allows parties in foreign proceedings to seek evidence in the United States, asking for discovery from FIFA (AMERICAS), Inc and FWC2026 US, Inc, two Florida-based FIFA entities. UEFA’s application claimed the evidence was necessary to support a criminal complaint it intended to file in Switzerland, where FIFA is headquartered, regarding the abandoned FFE plan. FIFA’s response was blunt, contending that UEFA’s submission contained “numerous false or misleading statements about FIFA and Infantino” and that UEFA was using the legal process to influence the election due in March next year. The governing body rejected UEFA’s suggestion that Infantino sought to profit personally from the FFE proposal, describing the plan as subject to approval by both the FIFA member associations and the FIFA Council, with continued oversight by those groups had it gone ahead. “With no basis whatsoever, UEFA suggests that Mr Infantino sought to profit personally from the FFE proposal,” FIFA said. “As explained, the FFE plan was subject to approval by both the FIFA member associations and FIFA Council, and FFE would have been subject to oversight by both groups within FIFA.” It added: “UEFA’s suggestions that Mr Infantino violated any law or ethical principle are categorically without merit.” UEFA did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Reuters.
The FFE proposal has become a flashpoint in relations between FIFA and UEFA, the European confederation that is one of the most powerful voices in world football. According to UEFA’s filings, Infantino developed the plan in secret with a small circle of advisers and investors, bypassing FIFA’s normal governance processes and failing to consult the FIFA Council, regional confederations or member associations. UEFA alleged that the scheme was designed to transfer the crown-jewel commercial rights of the World Cup into a separate corporate vehicle partly owned by outside investors, with a planned valuation that UEFA described as deeply inadequate. In the U.S. filing, UEFA said investors would have paid $4.2 billion for a stake in FIFA Forward Enterprise, valuing the business at roughly $20 billion. That figure, UEFA argued, significantly undervalued FIFA’s commercial rights, particularly given that the World Cup generates billions in broadcast, sponsorship and hospitality revenues across multiple cycles. UEFA also noted that the valuation was not subjected to an open auction or tested by an independent valuer, raising questions about whether the proposed investors were being given a favourable deal. The allegations were all the more serious because they touched on the integrity of FIFA’s leadership and the governance of world football’s most valuable assets. FIFA denied that there was anything secretive or improper about the proposal, insisting that it was discussed within FIFA’s structures and subject to internal checks. In its Monday filing, FIFA said UEFA’s characterisation was misleading and selective, and that the FFE initiative was ultimately abandoned not because of wrongdoing but because it did not receive the broad support needed to proceed. The project was formally shelved in July following opposition from confederations including UEFA, CONCACAF and the Asian Football Confederation, all of which complained that they had not been consulted before the proposal became public. That opposition triggered a broader push for governance changes at FIFA, with critics calling for greater transparency and more inclusive decision-making at the top of the organisation.
A central element of FIFA’s rebuttal is what FIFA calls UEFA’s conflation of two different financial concepts: equity value and enterprise value. In its filing, FIFA said UEFA, “whether deliberately or through ignorance,” mixed up the two metrics, leading to distorted picture of what the FFE proposal was actually worth. FIFA explained that the $20 billion figure cited by UEFA was the initial equity valuation, meaning “the value that remains for the shareholders after any debts have been paid off.” But the total enterprise value of the business, which takes into account the entire worth of the entity including debt and other obligations, was much higher. According to FIFA, materials distributed to FIFA’s member associations showed that FFE’s enterprise value was well over $30 billion, more than double the equity value. FIFA argued that this meant the valuation was far above what UEFA said would be fair, undermining the suggestion that proposed investors were getting a bargain. “Indeed, FFE’s enterprise value was well in excess of twice the equity value, and therefore far above the value UEFA says would be fair,” FIFA said. The distinction matters because UEFA’s argument rested on the premise that $20 billion was too low a valuation for World Cup commercial rights. If the correct enterprise valuation was above $30 billion, FIFA argued, the proposal did not short-change FIFA or its member associations in the way UEFA claimed. FIFA also dismissed the broader narrative that Infantino was trying to enrich himself or bypass governance, saying the FFE plan was designed with safeguards, including approval and oversight by both the FIFA member associations and the FIFA Council. The filing did not disclose identities of proposed investors or provide detailed breakdown of the $30 billion-plus enterprise value, but it maintained that information provided to member associations was sufficient to demonstrate fairness of terms. The exchange is likely to be scrutinised by court as it weighs whether to grant UEFA’s discovery request, and by European football officials who have accused FIFA of acting without proper transparency.
Beyond technical valuation dispute, the FFE affair has become entangled in wider governance crisis at FIFA. The plan’s collapse in July came after coordinated backlash from confederations, including UEFA, CONCACAF and Asian Football Confederation, which said they had been kept in the dark about proposal that would have dramatically restructured FIFA’s commercial operations. That backlash not only killed FFE project but also intensified demands for reform in how FIFA makes major decisions. In response, Infantino last week sent letter to all 211 member associations proposing independent review of governing body’s decision-making processes. Letter was widely seen as attempt to defuse tensions and demonstrate FIFA’s willingness to listen to its constituents ahead of presidential election. But UEFA’s subsequent legal maneuver in United States suggests that underlying tensions have not subsided. In its court filing, FIFA argued that FFE plan was never unilateral decision by Infantino, as UEFA alleged, but was always subject to approval by both FIFA member associations and FIFA Council. Had the plan proceeded, FIFA said, FFE would have been overseen by both groups, with regular reporting and accountability. FIFA used that point to counter UEFA’s accusation that Infantino had acted in secret with small group of advisers and investors. The fact that proposal was ultimately dropped, FIFA suggested, showed that governance process worked—it was discussed, it faced opposition, and it was shelved. UEFA, however, maintains that very fact it was developed and presented in way it was is evidence of deeper problem, and that Swiss criminal complaint is intended to determine whether any laws were broken. Swiss proceedings, if they go ahead, would add another layer of legal scrutiny to FIFA at time when it is also dealing with questions about human rights in World Cup host nations, commercial conflicts of interest and concentration of power in presidency.
The timing of UEFA’s legal action is central to FIFA’s argument that the discovery request is not a good-faith effort to pursue criminal wrongdoing but a political weapon aimed at the FIFA presidential election. Infantino is due to stand for re-election in March next year, and FIFA said UEFA filed its application “just before FIFA’s election” in an apparent attempt to influence the outcome. FIFA noted that UEFA had filed not one but four applications, all of which, it said, spread misinformation about Infantino. “This court should reject any attempt to influence FIFA’s presidential election based on these grounds,” FIFA said. The election context is significant because Infantino has been dominant figure in world football since first taking office in 2016, and he has sought to position himself as reformer who cleaned up FIFA after corruption scandals of 2015. However, his tenure has also been marked by accusations of authoritarian leadership, lavish spending and willingness to centralise commercial power in ways that have alarmed European football officials. UEFA has been one of Infantino’s most persistent critics, and the FFE proposal gave confederation opportunity to rally opposition to FIFA’s direction. By taking dispute to U.S. courts and seeking to pursue criminal complaint in Switzerland, UEFA escalated what might otherwise have been internal governance dispute into legal battle with potential personal consequences for Infantino. FIFA’s filing sought to turn that escalation back on UEFA, framing it as abuse of process and violation of normal electoral calendar. Whether or not court accepts that framing, public airing of dispute is likely to dominate discussion in run-up to election, forcing member associations to take sides and potentially reshaping debate about FIFA’s future.
The discovery request at centre of dispute was made under 28 U.S.C. Section 1782, federal statute that permits U.S. courts to order discovery for use in foreign legal proceedings. Provision is often used by parties in cross-border disputes who need testimony or documents located in United States, and it has been used against FIFA and other football bodies in previous litigation. UEFA’s request specifically sought to depose witnesses and obtain records from FIFA (AMERICAS), Inc and FWC2026 US, Inc, both based in Florida, on theory that those entities were involved in planning and planning to establish FFE. If court grants UEFA’s request, FIFA would be forced to disclose internal communications, valuations and communications with investors, potentially providing UEFA with material it could use in Swiss criminal complaint. If it rejects it, UEFA would be denied avenue to obtain U.S.-based evidence, at least without longer and more complicated international legal process. FIFA asked court to reject application entirely, accusing UEFA of abusing discovery process for political purposes. In doing so, FIFA is asking U.S. judiciary to take exceptional step of interfering with another international sports body’s electoral politics. Case also highlights broader theme of legal turbulence at intersection of sport and law. UEFA’s planned complaint in Switzerland, where FIFA is headquartered, is one of several legal fronts that have opened around FIFA in recent years, including challenges to World Cup scheduling, treatment of workers in Qatar and commercial relationships. FFE matter is particularly sensitive because it touches directly on financial value of World Cup, an asset that FIFA guards carefully and that member associations rely on for funding. Outcome of U.S. discovery motion will not immediately decide Swiss criminal complaint, but it could shape whether UEFA can make progress in Switzerland. Ruling in FIFA’s favour would be blow to UEFA’s effort to scrutinise Infantino’s conduct, while decision favourable to UEFA could expose FIFA’s internal decision-making and complicate Infantino’s re-election campaign. For now, UEFA has not commented publicly on FIFA’s latest filing, but remains likely to press its case in U.S. court and in Switzerland. Fight over FFE, abandoned proposal itself has been abandoned, is far from over.