FIFA accuses UEFA of ‘campaign of misinformation’ in court fight over World Cup financing documents
FIFA has accused UEFA of running a “campaign of misinformation” and acting in “bad faith” as the European governing body attempts to force the disclosure of documents related to Gianni Infantino’s abandoned plan to sell parts of the World Cup to private investors. The accusation comes in a court filing in Miami, Florida, obtained by Sky News, in which FIFA’s lawyers are seeking to block UEFA’s request for all evidence tied to the now-defunct scheme, known as FIFA Forward Enterprise. The filing marks an extraordinary escalation in the long-running feud between world football’s governing body and its most powerful regional confederation, and it threatens to cast a shadow over next year’s FIFA presidential election. UEFA has already withdrawn its support for Infantino, although it has not yet proposed an alternative candidate. The legal dispute centers on a plan that was once touted as a way to unlock new revenue for the sport but was quietly shelved after internal and external opposition. FIFA’s lawyers wrote that “UEFA’s conduct demonstrates that its application was made in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment.” The filing asks the court to reject UEFA’s application entirely, arguing that it is an improper attempt to use the U.S. legal system to interfere in FIFA’s internal affairs and election process.
The FIFA Forward Enterprise, or FFE, was conceived as a commercial vehicle that would allow private investors to buy into FIFA’s competitions, effectively selling stakes in the future revenues of the World Cup and other tournaments. Under the plan, FIFA would create a dedicated entity to manage and monetize its commercial rights, with outside capital providing an upfront cash injection in exchange for a share of future income. The scheme was part of Infantino’s broader strategy to expand FIFA’s revenue base and fund an ambitious global development program. But it immediately drew criticism from transparency campaigners and European football officials, who warned that selling off the crown jewels of the sport to private equity could compromise FIFA’s governance and divert money away from grassroots football. The plan was eventually abandoned, but it has now resurfaced in a legal battle that pits UEFA against FIFA. UEFA’s legal team has argued that it needs the documents to determine whether Infantino should face a case for criminal mismanagement. Specifically, UEFA alleges that Infantino undersold the tournaments for personal financial benefit, a claim that FIFA rejects with unusual force. In its filing, FIFA’s lawyers said: “With no basis whatsoever, UEFA suggests that Mr Infantino sought to profit personally from the FFE proposal.” The response reflects FIFA’s determination to defend its president against what it sees as a politically motivated attack.
The legal fight began when UEFA filed an application seeking access to all evidence related to FFE. UEFA’s stated aim is to assess whether there are grounds for a criminal mismanagement case against Infantino under Swiss law. Criminal mismanagement in Switzerland generally involves a person who, in managing another’s assets, causes damage through a breach of duty with the intent of benefiting themselves or another. UEFA’s lawyers have suggested that the abandoned plan to sell parts of the World Cup may have involved such a breach, and they want to examine internal FIFA documents to determine whether Infantino personally benefited from the proposed transaction. FIFA has dismissed the suggestion as baseless and has accused UEFA of mounting a campaign of harassment. The filing in Miami is part of FIFA’s effort to block the document request, arguing that UEFA’s application is not a legitimate legal inquiry but a weapon in a political war. FIFA’s lawyers also noted that UEFA had filed not just one but four applications related to Infantino, all in the period immediately before the FIFA presidential election. They wrote: “Just before FIFA’s election, UEFA filed this application and three others spreading misinformation regarding Mr. Infantino.” The filing adds that the court should reject any attempt to influence FIFA’s presidential election on those grounds.
The timing of the legal dispute is highly significant. FIFA’s presidential election is scheduled for March, and the deadline for nominations falls in November. UEFA has withdrawn its support for Infantino, a move that signals its dissatisfaction with his leadership but does not yet amount to a formal challenge. No alternative candidate has been publicly proposed, leaving the field open for Infantino to seek another term. FIFA’s lawyers argue that UEFA’s legal maneuvers are designed to influence the election by spreading misinformation and damaging Infantino’s reputation just before the vote. They are asking the Miami court to reject UEFA’s application on those grounds, effectively treating the document request as an improper attempt to interfere in FIFA’s internal democratic process. The dispute has deepened the already strained relationship between FIFA and UEFA. Infantino, who has led FIFA since 2016, has often clashed with European football leaders over issues ranging from the expanded Club World Cup to the proposed biennial World Cup. UEFA’s withdrawal of support is a significant blow, but it remains unclear whether any European federation will put forward a challenger. The nomination deadline in November will be a key test of whether UEFA’s opposition can translate into a concrete alternative.
The broader implications of the case extend beyond the immediate dispute. If UEFA succeeds in obtaining the documents, it could use them to build a case against Infantino or to support a rival candidate in the election. If FIFA succeeds in blocking the request, it may be seen as avoiding scrutiny at a time when transparency is a key issue in sports governance. FIFA has sought to present itself as a reformed institution after the corruption scandals that engulfed it in 2015, and the accusation that UEFA is running a “campaign of misinformation” is a sharp reminder of the deep divisions that remain. The case also raises questions about the role of private investment in football. The FFE scheme was designed to bring outside capital into FIFA’s competitions, but it was abandoned after criticism. UEFA’s legal pursuit suggests that European football’s governing body is determined to hold FIFA’s leadership accountable for decisions made behind closed doors. The Miami court will now have to decide whether UEFA’s request is a legitimate legal inquiry or an abuse of process. The outcome could set a precedent for how international sports bodies resolve disputes through national courts, and it could shape the balance of power in global football for years to come.
For now, both sides are digging in. FIFA has asked the Miami court to block UEFA’s application, and its lawyers have made clear that they view the document request as part of a broader campaign against Infantino. UEFA, meanwhile, has shown no sign of backing down, and its decision to pursue the matter in a U.S. court suggests that it is prepared to take the fight to FIFA’s doorstep. The next few weeks will be crucial. The nomination deadline for the FIFA presidential election is in November, and any challenger to Infantino would need to come forward by then. If UEFA can produce evidence of wrongdoing, it could dramatically alter the race. If not, Infantino may be able to portray UEFA’s actions as a politically motivated attack and rally support from other confederations. The court’s decision on the document request will be an important milestone, but it is unlikely to end the broader battle. FIFA’s accusation of “bad faith” and “harassment” has set a combative tone, and the relationship between world football’s governing body and its European counterpart appears to be at its lowest point in years. With the election looming, the legal and political maneuvering is only likely to intensify.