FIFA has accused UEFA of waging a deliberate “misinformation campaign” and attempting to interfere in the coming election for the FIFA presidency, as world soccer’s governing body urged a United States federal court to reject a discovery request tied to a controversial and now-abandoned investment proposal. The request, filed last month by UEFA, sought permission from a federal court in the Southern District of Florida to obtain testimony and documents for use in a planned criminal complaint in Switzerland against FIFA President Gianni Infantino. That complaint relates to a plan to transfer World Cup commercial rights into a subsidiary called FIFA Forward Enterprise, or FFE. In its response filed Monday, FIFA said UEFA’s brief contained “numerous false or misleading statements” about both FIFA and Infantino. “With no basis whatsoever, UEFA suggests that Mr Infantino sought to profit personally from the FFE proposal,” FIFA said, opposing UEFA’s motion. “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 did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Reuters.
The underlying dispute centers on how the FFE proposal was conceived and valued. UEFA has alleged that Infantino developed the plan 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. In its legal filing, UEFA said the investors would have paid $4.2 billion for a stake in FIFA Forward Enterprise, a transaction that would have valued the business at approximately $20 billion. UEFA argued that this valuation significantly undervalued FIFA’s commercial rights, and it noted that the project was not subjected to an open auction or tested by an independent valuer. The proposal was ultimately abandoned in July following opposition from a number of confederations, including UEFA, CONCACAF, and the Asian Football Confederation, with much of the criticism centered on the lack of consultation. The episode fueled wider demands for changes to FIFA’s governance, and it has now become the backdrop for a legal battle in the United States that could have significant consequences for Infantino and for the relationship between FIFA and its European confederation.
FIFA, however, has rejected UEFA’s characterization of the valuation, arguing that UEFA has either deliberately misconstrued or failed to understand the financial structure of the proposed subsidiary. In its filing, FIFA said UEFA “conflates equity value with enterprise value,” and it explained that the $20 billion figure was the “initial equity valuation,” which it defined as “the value that remains for the shareholders after any debts have been paid off.” FIFA added that materials distributed to its member associations show that FFE’s total “enterprise value,” or the “entire value of the business,” was well over $30 billion. That figure, FIFA said, was more than twice the equity value and therefore “far above the value UEFA says would be fair.” FIFA also dismissed suggestions that Infantino stood to benefit personally from the arrangement, emphasizing that the plan was subject to approval by both the FIFA member associations and the FIFA Council, and that FFE would have been under the oversight of both groups. In language that was unusually direct for a filing between two major sports governing bodies, FIFA said the accusations against Infantino were not only unfounded but also part of a broader effort to damage his reputation ahead of the presidential election.
The legal mechanics of the case are important to understanding what is at stake. UEFA had asked a U.S. federal court to authorize discovery from FIFA (AMERICAS), Inc and FWC2026 US, Inc, two Florida-based FIFA entities, under a provision of U.S. law that permits evidence gathering for use in foreign proceedings. This type of application, often referred to as a “1782 application” after the relevant statutory section, allows parties involved in litigation or criminal proceedings abroad to obtain testimony and documents from U.S.-based persons or companies. UEFA has said it needs the material for a planned criminal complaint in Switzerland against Infantino over the FFE proposal. In opposing the motion, FIFA argued that UEFA was abusing the discovery process and using the U.S. courts to advance a political and legal agenda. FIFA also said UEFA’s brief was part of a pattern of behavior aimed at discrediting Infantino and interfering with FIFA’s internal affairs. The filing asks the court to reject UEFA’s request not only on procedural grounds but also because, in FIFA’s view, the underlying allegations are baseless. UEFA, for its part, has not yet responded in the Florida case, and its silence on the matter has left the public dispute largely dominated by FIFA’s rebuttal.
Beyond the technical legal arguments, the case has taken on a strongly political dimension. Infantino is set to be up for reelection in March, and FIFA has made clear that it views UEFA’s actions as an attempt to influence that vote. Last week, Infantino wrote to all 211 member associations proposing an independent review of the governing body’s decision-making processes, a move widely seen as an effort to address governance concerns and steady FIFA’s course ahead of the election. In its filing, FIFA explicitly accused UEFA of trying to influence the election by spreading misinformation. “Just before FIFA’s election, UEFA filed this 1782 Application (and three others) spreading misinformation regarding Mr. Infantino,” the filing said. “This court should reject any attempt to influence FIFA’s presidential election based on these grounds.” That language reflects a deep and escalating rift between the global governing body and UEFA, which has often been the most powerful of FIFA’s six confederations. UEFA’s decision to pursue a criminal complaint in Switzerland, combined with its use of the U.S. discovery process, has effectively turned a commercial dispute into a legal war with direct implications for the leadership of world football.
The broader implications of the case extend far beyond the FFE proposal itself. If UEFA is allowed to obtain the documents and testimony it seeks, the material could form the basis of a criminal complaint that might threaten Infantino’s position and further destabilize FIFA’s leadership. If the U.S. court rejects UEFA’s request, however, FIFA would likely view it as a validation of its position and a rebuke to UEFA’s tactics. Either way, the confrontation has already exposed the deep mistrust between FIFA and UEFA, and it has raised questions about how FIFA makes major commercial decisions and whether its governance structures are adequate to ensure transparency and accountability. The FFE plan may be dead, but the conflict it created is very much alive. FIFA’s proposed independent review of its decision-making processes could offer a path toward reform, but that review will take place against the backdrop of a bitter legal fight and an impending presidential election. In the meantime, the U.S. court in the Southern District of Florida will have to decide whether UEFA’s discovery request should proceed, and whether the judicial system should be used to settle a dispute that FIFA argues belongs firmly in the realm of internal soccer politics rather than international criminal law. For now, both sides remain entrenched, and the outcome of this case is likely to shape the future of FIFA’s leadership and its relationship with one of its most important confederations.