Fifa has accused Uefa of waging a “misinformation campaign” against Gianni Infantino and attempting to interfere in the race for the presidency of world football’s governing body, as it urged a US federal court to reject a discovery request connected to a controversial investment proposal. The accusation was made in legal papers filed in the southern district of Florida, in response to Uefa’s application to obtain testimony and documents for use in a planned criminal complaint in Switzerland against Infantino. The complaint concerns an abandoned plan to transfer World Cup commercial rights into a subsidiary called Fifa Forward Enterprise. In its response, Fifa said Uefa’s brief contained “numerous false or misleading statements about Fifa and Infantino” and that Uefa’s conduct demonstrated the filing was made “in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment.” The filing also alleged that Uefa was trying to influence the upcoming presidential election, in which Infantino is seeking another term. Uefa declined to comment. The row marks an extraordinary public split between the two bodies, which have often cooperated despite their differences. It also raises questions about the use of US courts by sports organisations to pursue allegations against Fifa’s leadership.
At the centre of the legal dispute is Uefa’s request under a US federal statute that allows foreign parties to seek discovery for use in proceedings outside the United States. Uefa asked the court to authorise discovery from two Florida-based Fifa entities: Fifa (Americas) Inc and FWC2026 US Inc. The European governing body said it needed the material for a criminal complaint it planned to file in Switzerland, where Infantino faces allegations related to the FFE proposal. According to Uefa, Infantino developed the proposal in secret with a small group of advisers and investors, bypassing Fifa’s normal governance processes and failing to consult Fifa’s council, regional confederations or member associations. The proposal would have transferred World Cup commercial rights into the FFE subsidiary, with investors paying $4.2bn for a stake and valuing the business at about $20bn. Uefa alleged that the valuation significantly undervalued Fifa’s commercial rights and that the deal was not subjected to an open auction or tested by an independent valuer. Fifa rejected these characterisations in strong terms. It said the FFE plan was subject to approval by both the member associations and the Fifa council, and that the subsidiary would have been overseen by both groups. “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. Uefa’s suggestions that Mr Infantino violated any law or ethical principle are categorically without merit.”
Uefa’s application was filed in the southern district of Florida, where Fifa’s Americas entities are based. The choice of forum was significant because it allowed Uefa to seek evidence from American-based entities that might be relevant to the Swiss proceedings. Uefa said investors would have paid $4.2bn (£3.2bn) for a stake in FFE, valuing the business at about $20bn. It argued that this figure was far too low, given the value of the World Cup commercial rights that would have been transferred. It also said the deal was not put to an open auction or reviewed by an independent valuer, raising concerns that the structure was designed to benefit a small group of insiders. Fifa, however, said Uefa’s valuation analysis was fundamentally flawed. In its response, Fifa accused Uefa of “deliberately or through ignorance” conflating equity value with enterprise value. It said the $20bn figure represented FFE’s “initial equity valuation” — meaning the value remaining for shareholders after debts had been paid off — and that the total enterprise value of the business was well over $30bn. “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 is central to Fifa’s defence: if the deal was valued correctly, Uefa’s claim that the proposal was an undervalued deal collapses. Fifa also noted that the proposal required approval by Fifa’s member associations and council, and that the subsidiary would have been subject to oversight by both groups. It said Uefa’s suggestion of personal profit was “categorically without merit.”
The FFE project was abandoned in July after opposition from confederations including Uefa, Concacaf and the Asian Football Confederation. The opponents complained about a lack of consultation and argued that the plan had been developed in secret. The dispute quickly became a major governance crisis for Fifa, fuelling demands for changes to the way the organisation is run. Infantino, who became Fifa president in 2016, has promised to modernise the organisation and restore trust after years of scandal. But his handling of the FFE proposal gave his critics an opportunity to question whether his reforms had actually taken hold. Last week, in an apparent attempt to defuse the crisis, Infantino wrote to all 211 member associations proposing an independent review of Fifa’s decision-making processes. The move was widely seen as an attempt to shore up support ahead of the presidential election in March, in which Infantino is seeking re-election. However, Fifa’s legal response suggests that the organisation believes Uefa’s court actions are part of a coordinated effort to damage Infantino’s chances. “Just before Fifa’s election, Uefa filed this 1782 Application (and three others) spreading misinformation regarding Mr Infantino,” Fifa said. “This court should reject any attempt to influence Fifa’s presidential election based on these grounds.”
The legal battle also highlights the growing use of US discovery powers by parties involved in international sports disputes. The statute under which Uefa filed its application allows a foreign tribunal or party to request documents and testimony for use in a foreign proceeding. But courts have discretion to deny such requests, particularly when they appear to be made in bad faith or for purposes of harassment. Fifa has urged the court to exercise that discretion here, arguing that Uefa’s application is not a genuine attempt to obtain evidence but a political weapon dressed up as a legal action. Fifa said Uefa’s conduct “demonstrates that its [court filing] was made in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment.” It also noted that Uefa had filed not just one but four applications, all involving Infantino and all coming just before the election. The timing, according to Fifa, reveals the true purpose of the filings: to influence the outcome of the presidential vote by spreading negative information about the incumbent. Uefa declined to comment on Fifa’s response, but it has previously argued that it is seeking accountability for serious governance failures. The case is likely to be closely watched by national associations, confederations and football officials around the world, as it touches on fundamental questions about governance, transparency and the use of legal proceedings in sports politics.
For now, the immediate question is whether the Florida court will grant Uefa’s discovery request or side with Fifa and reject it. If Uefa succeeds, it could obtain testimony and documents that may be used in a Swiss criminal complaint against Infantino. If Fifa prevails, Uefa will have to look elsewhere for evidence, and the political pressure on Infantino may ease. But the stakes extend beyond the fate of one legal motion. The dispute has already deepened the rift between Fifa and Uefa, and it has exposed the deep distrust that exists between the global governing body and its wealthiest regional confederation. It has also reignited debates about Fifa’s governance, the concentration of power in the presidency, and the role of regional confederations in holding the organisation to account. Infantino’s proposal for an independent review of Fifa’s decision-making processes is likely to be scrutinised in this context, with critics asking whether it is a genuine reform or a tactical move to neutralise opposition. Uefa, for its part, appears determined to press its case. Fifa, equally, has made clear that it will not tolerate what it sees as interference in its internal affairs. “This court should reject any attempt to influence Fifa’s presidential election based on these grounds,” Fifa said. The coming weeks, leading up to the March election, are likely to determine whether this bitter legal and political battle escalates or subsides. Associated Press contributed to this report.