FIFA has formally accused UEFA of orchestrating a “misinformation campaign” against world soccer’s governing body and its president, Gianni Infantino, while also attempting to interfere in the upcoming FIFA presidential election. The accusation came in a legal filing in the Southern District of Florida, where FIFA urged a U.S. federal court to reject a discovery request submitted by UEFA. That request sought permission to obtain testimony and documents for use in a planned criminal complaint in Switzerland against Infantino. The dispute centers on a now-abandoned proposal to transfer World Cup commercial rights into a subsidiary called FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE). In its response, FIFA said UEFA’s brief contained “numerous false or misleading statements about FIFA and Infantino” and suggested that the European governing body was using the courts to damage Infantino’s reputation as he seeks reelection. FIFA insisted that the FFE plan was subject to approval by both FIFA member associations and the FIFA Council, and that FFE would have been under the oversight of both groups within FIFA.
According to FIFA’s filing, UEFA’s assertion that Infantino sought to profit personally from the FFE proposal had “no basis whatsoever,” and claims that Infantino violated any law or ethical principle were “categorically without merit.” UEFA has declined to comment on the filing, but its original motion alleged that Infantino developed the proposal in secret with a small group of advisers and investors, bypassing FIFA’s normal governance processes and failing to consult the FIFA Council, regional confederations, or member associations. The filing seen by Reuters asked the U.S. court to authorize discovery from FIFA (AMERICAS), Inc. and FWC2026 US, Inc., two Florida-based FIFA entities. These entities are believed to hold relevant financial and corporate records tied to the proposed FFE structure. The legal battle marks a sharp escalation in tensions between FIFA and UEFA, which have often clashed over governance, financial distribution, and the direction of the global game, but rarely in such a public and adversarial legal forum.
A major point of contention in the dispute is the valuation of FIFA Forward Enterprise. UEFA claimed that investors would have paid $4.2 billion for a stake in FFE, which would have valued the business at approximately $20 billion. UEFA argued that this valuation significantly undervalued FIFA’s commercial rights and alleged that the proposal had not been subjected to an open auction or independently tested by a professional valuer. FIFA rejected this characterization, arguing that UEFA confused equity value with enterprise value. FIFA explained that FFE’s initial equity valuation, meaning the value remaining for shareholders after debts are paid, was $20 billion. However, materials distributed to FIFA’s member associations reportedly showed that FFE’s total enterprise value, meaning the entire value of the business, was well over $30 billion. FIFA stated, “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.” This point was central to FIFA’s defense, as it sought to counter the narrative that the proposal was a sweetheart deal for investors at the expense of the sport.
The FFE project was ultimately abandoned in July after facing opposition from several confederations, including UEFA, CONCACAF, and the Asian Football Confederation, largely due to a lack of consultation and concerns about transparency. The dispute fueled broader demands for changes to FIFA’s governance and decision-making processes, with critics arguing that major commercial decisions should not be made without the full involvement of member associations. Despite the controversy, the Gulf Football Federation, which represents eight Middle-Eastern member nations, reiterated its support for Infantino on Tuesday. The federation praised his role in leading FIFA and developing the sport in the region and around the world. Meanwhile, in a separate move last week, Infantino wrote to all 211 member associations proposing an independent review of FIFA’s decision-making processes. That proposal was widely seen as an attempt to address governance concerns and to reassure members that their voices would be heard in future decisions, while also countering criticism leveled by UEFA and other confederations.
The timing of UEFA’s legal action has become a central element of FIFA’s response. Infantino is up for reelection in March, and FIFA has alleged that UEFA’s filings are an attempt to influence the outcome of that election. In its filing, FIFA said, “Just before FIFA’s election, UEFA filed this 1782 Application (and three others) spreading misinformation regarding Mr Infantino.” The reference to 1782 Application is to a provision of U.S. law that allows parties to obtain discovery for use in foreign proceedings. FIFA urged the court to reject any attempt to influence its presidential election based on these grounds. The organization framed UEFA’s motion as a strategic legal maneuver rather than a legitimate pursuit of evidence, suggesting that the allegations were being used to damage Infantino politically. UEFA, for its part, has not publicly explained the timing, but its original request indicated that it was gathering evidence for a potential Swiss criminal complaint, a step that would likely require substantial documentation from the Florida-based entities.
This legal confrontation underscores the deep divisions within international soccer governance and raises questions about the future relationship between FIFA and UEFA. The outcome of the discovery request could have significant implications, not only for Infantino’s presidency but also for the balance of power in world football. If the court grants UEFA’s request, it could open the door to further scrutiny of FIFA’s commercial dealings and decision-making processes. If the request is rejected, it may be seen as a victory for FIFA and reinforce Infantino’s position as he campaigns for another term. The broader context includes ongoing debates about the distribution of wealth in the sport, the influence of regional confederations, and the need for greater transparency and accountability. As the legal process unfolds, the focus will likely remain on whether FIFA can demonstrate that its reforms and governance structures are sufficient to prevent the kind of closed-door deal-making that UEFA and others have alleged. For now, the world’s governing body remains defiant, describing UEFA’s action as baseless and misleading, and vowing to defend both its reputation and its leadership against what it sees as an improper attempt to sway an election.