FIFA has accused UEFA of waging a “misinformation campaign” against it in a bitter legal and political dispute over documents related to Gianni Infantino’s abandoned plan to sell off commercial rights to the World Cup. In a 26-page response filed in a Florida court, FIFA said UEFA’s attempt to force the world governing body to hand over the documents was designed to influence the FIFA presidential election scheduled for next year, rather than to serve any legitimate legal purpose. The filing argues that UEFA is pursuing the case “for purposes of harassment, rather than out of any legitimate need for discovery,” and directly accuses European football’s governing body of acting “in bad faith.” The clash marks a dramatic escalation of the long-running feud between FIFA and UEFA, which represents Europe’s wealthiest and most powerful national football associations, and it comes just months before Infantino is expected to seek another term as FIFA president. At the heart of the dispute is a proposal Infantino put forward in July, which provoked an immediate uproar and was quickly withdrawn, but which continues to cast a shadow over FIFA’s governance, its finances, and the broader battle for control of world football. FIFA’s court filing is unusually blunt, describing UEFA’s legal manoeuvre as an abuse of process and a political attack dressed up as a legitimate request for evidence. The world body insists that UEFA is not genuinely seeking documents but is instead trying to damage Infantino ahead of the election, and it has asked the court to reject UEFA’s application outright.
The underlying controversy centres on the FIFA Forward Enterprise initiative, or FFE, under which Infantino proposed creating a commercial subsidiary to run FIFA’s biggest events, including the World Cup and the Club World Cup. Under the plan, private investors would have been allowed to acquire stakes in the newly created company, a move that FIFA argued would unlock the commercial value of its flagship tournaments and generate new revenue for the development of football around the world. However, critics reacted with alarm, warning that selling equity in the World Cup to outside investors could compromise the integrity of the sport and hand control of football’s most important commercial assets to private interests. The backlash was immediate and intense, with UEFA and several national federations voicing strong opposition. Within days, FIFA was forced to shelve the proposals, but the damage to Infantino’s political standing had already been done. In its court filing, FIFA says UEFA has made “numerous false or misleading statements” about Infantino and the world governing body, including the claim that he “sought to profit personally from the FFE proposal.” FIFA rejects that allegation as baseless and insists that the plan was intended to benefit football. The filing also says that UEFA’s application “fails on both the facts and the law” and should therefore be denied. The language reflects a deep sense of grievance at FIFA over what it sees as a coordinated campaign by UEFA to undermine Infantino’s leadership and influence the outcome of the presidential election.
The legal battle has now moved to the United States, where UEFA has filed a request in Florida for permission to gather evidence for a potential criminal complaint in Switzerland, where both FIFA and UEFA are headquartered. UEFA said last month that, alongside “other interested parties,” it was “preparing to bring criminal claims in Switzerland against Infantino and possibly other FIFA officials and advisors for criminal mismanagement.” The Swiss criminal angle is significant because both organisations are subject to Swiss law, and any allegation of mismanagement would be dealt with by Swiss prosecutors. UEFA’s decision to seek discovery in a Florida court suggests that it believes relevant documents or testimony may be held in the United States, perhaps by financial institutions, commercial partners, or other entities connected to FIFA’s business affairs. FIFA, however, argues that the request is an abuse of the legal process and is being pursued in bad faith. The world governing body says UEFA is not acting out of any legitimate need for evidence but is instead attempting to create a legal weapon to use against Infantino in the political battle for the presidency. FIFA has also suggested that UEFA is trying to influence the election by generating negative headlines and damaging Infantino’s reputation. UEFA, for its part, declined to comment when contacted by AFP, leaving FIFA’s accusations unanswered in public. Legal experts say the Florida case could take months to resolve, and it is unclear whether UEFA will ultimately obtain the documents it is seeking. Regardless of the outcome, the dispute has already deepened the divide between FIFA and UEFA and has raised serious questions about the governance of world football’s governing body.
The election context is crucial to understanding the intensity of the conflict. FIFA confirmed this month that Infantino will stand again for president in the election scheduled for March, despite the backlash over his now-abandoned private investment plan. UEFA has positioned itself as the leading opposition to Infantino, calling openly for his removal and urging FIFA’s member associations to reconsider their support. European football’s governing body represents some of the most influential national associations in the world, including World Cup holders Spain and powerhouses such as France, England, and Germany, and it has the financial and political weight to challenge FIFA’s leadership. In an apparent effort to counter that challenge, Infantino sent a letter to FIFA’s 211 member associations this week indicating that a greater amount of money could be distributed to them from FIFA’s vast cash reserves. The letter was seen by AFP and comes after UEFA urged FIFA to make $10 million available to each of its member associations — a total of $2.1 billion — for investment in infrastructure and football development. In his letter, Infantino said he would support “the greatest level of additional funding that can responsibly be delivered,” a statement widely interpreted as an attempt to shore up support among smaller federations that depend heavily on FIFA funding. These associations, many of which have limited resources and rely on FIFA’s development programmes, are likely to play a decisive role in the presidential election. By promising increased financial support, Infantino is appealing directly to the constituency that has formed the backbone of his support since he first took office.
Infantino has insisted that the withdrawn commercial proposal was intended to generate additional money for football, not to enrich himself or FIFA executives. “The recent commercial proposal, now withdrawn, was intended to enable FIFA to invest more in football,” he wrote in the letter to member associations. But UEFA has argued that Infantino did not need to try to raise capital in the first place, pointing to FIFA’s estimated $6 billion of unused cash reserves. European football’s governing body has questioned why FIFA would consider selling off parts of the World Cup when it already holds such a large financial cushion, and it has accused Infantino of behaving like a chief executive of a private corporation rather than the leader of a global sporting body. The dispute over FIFA’s reserves has become a central theme in the campaign, with UEFA arguing that the money should be distributed to national associations to develop football infrastructure, support grassroots programmes, and help the sport recover from the financial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. FIFA, however, has said that its reserves are necessary to ensure the long-term financial stability of the organisation and to protect against future economic shocks. The clash over money is not just about finances; it is also a battle over the direction of FIFA and the role of its president. UEFA wants to present Infantino as a reckless and self-serving leader who is willing to risk the integrity of the sport to expand his own power. FIFA, in turn, wants to present UEFA as a group of wealthy European elites who are trying to dictate terms to the rest of the football world and undermine an elected leader for their own political purposes.
Infantino is not without friends in the global football community, and his support base extends well beyond Europe. Saudi Arabia, which has been confirmed as the host of the 2034 World Cup, came out in support of Infantino last month, and he also enjoys backing from the African football confederation, CAF, and South America’s CONMEBOL. The support of these confederations is significant because they control large blocks of votes in FIFA’s presidential election, and they have historically been loyal to Infantino in exchange for development funding and promises of greater representation in FIFA’s decision-making bodies. South American nations, including Argentina, Paraguay, and Uruguay, are also set to host a match during the next World Cup in 2030, with the tournament mainly being held in Spain, Portugal, and Morocco. That arrangement, which was brokered with Infantino’s involvement, has helped consolidate support for him in both South America and Africa. UEFA’s campaign against Infantino may therefore face an uphill battle, as it seeks to rally opposition against a president who commands significant backing across multiple confederations. However, the legal pressure and the controversy over the abandoned commercial plan are unlikely to disappear, and they could continue to damage Infantino’s reputation in the run-up to the election. The coming months will determine whether Infantino’s coalition holds together or whether UEFA’s campaign can gain enough traction to force a change in leadership. For now, FIFA is fighting back in court and in the court of public opinion, accusing UEFA of trying to undermine the world body’s leadership rather than engage in constructive reform. The outcome of this confrontation will shape the future of football governance for years to come.