FIFA accuses UEFA of smear campaign against president Gianni Infantino

The bitter global football feud between FIFA and UEFA has shifted into American federal courtrooms, where world soccer’s governing body has fired back against legal attacks by dismissing European threats of criminal mismanagement as a coordinated public relations assault. The escalation follows the explosive collapse of the $4.2 billion (£3.1bn) FIFA Forward Enterprise scheme, an ambitious project that would have sold a 20% stake in FIFA's commercial and event operations to outside investors, including Joshua Kushner’s U.S. Investment fund Thrive Eternal, before imploding amid fierce resistance from European leadership.

Seeking document disclosures across multiple U.S. Jurisdictions, European football's governing body launched four federal court cases on August 27 and August 28, targeting FIFA's U.S. Operations in Florida, venture capitalist Kushner and JPMorgan in New York, and BANN Ventures CEO Greg Maffei in Colorado. According to legal filings reported by The Athletic, UEFA accused FIFA President Gianni Infantino of promoting a fraudulently undervalued stake for his personal benefit without consulting soccer's hierarchy, utilizing aggressive U.S. Discovery rules to gather evidence for contemplated criminal complaints in Switzerland under Article 158 for criminal mismanagement.

Related YouTube video

FIFA countered with sharp legal motions filed in Florida, New York, and Colorado, castigating the European court filings as meritless press releases designed to protect continental market power. According to Front Office Sports, FIFA's legal team argued that UEFA's application suffers from fundamental defects, noting that the European confederation is attempting to secure sweeping discovery for foreign criminal proceedings that do not legally exist and which UEFA lacks the statutory authority to initiate. Furthermore, FIFA questioned why UEFA bypassed Swiss courts entirely in favor of American subpoenas.

Behind the courtroom maneuvers lies a sharp economic and geopolitical divide over football funding. FIFA argued in its filings, as detailed by the Bbc, that UEFA's true motivation was to prevent smaller nations from acquiring the financial strength to challenge the European elite. The aborted FFE proposal would have elevated funding distributed to each national association for the 2027–2030 cycle from £5.9m to £14.7m. By strengthening the developing world, FIFA asserted, global competition would increase, ultimately eroding UEFA's market dominance and reducing the competitive moat around its flagship tournaments.

The fallout has also ensnared high-profile financial backers who underestimated the sport's volatile political climate. Thrive Eternal had held talks with Infantino for nearly a year before signing the term sheet, drawing advisory support from financial heavyweights including JPMorgan and BANN Ventures. Reflecting on the toxic fallout, Kushner issued a public statement acknowledging that his firm miscalculated the governance wars.

"While we stand behind the motivations of FFE, we failed to appreciate the political dynamics of global football, and the lengths some would go to… had we known what this would devolve into, we would not have gotten involved."

Joshua Kushner, Founder, Thrive Eternal, via BBC

Tensions between Infantino and UEFA President Aleksander Čeferin had already reached a boiling point over unrelated controversies, including U.S. President Donald Trump's involvement in overturning a red card for American striker Folarin Balogun, which prompted Čeferin to skip the World Cup final in protest. While confederations such as CONMEBOL and CAF have remained aligned with Infantino ahead of his planned re-election bid in March 2027, as Crypto Briefing notes, the European bloc's relentless pressure highlights deep governance instability.

The immediate legal battle now centers on the Southern District of Florida, where the court granted FIFA’s motion to oppose UEFA's application, setting a definitive deadline for FIFA's formal opposition submission.

That September 28 deadline will test whether UEFA's sweeping U.S. Discovery requests can legally survive FIFA's jurisdictional challenges or if the bitter trans-Atlantic feud will be forced to retreat from American federal courts.

The Financial and Legal Fault Lines

The dispute extends beyond the FFE proposal into allegations of financial irregularity. Crypto Briefing reported that the Daily Telegraph alleged UEFA made a six-figure severance payment and a £45,000 contribution toward MBA fees for a former staff member with personal ties to Infantino, who served as UEFA’s general secretary from 2009 to 2016. Infantino has dismissed these claims as defamatory and categorically untrue.

In the American courts, UEFA's strategy focuses on the valuation of FIFA's commercial assets. According to BBC Sport, UEFA lawyers argue the World Cup was deliberately undervalued at approximately £15bn, a figure they claim was not tested by an independent valuer nor the result of an open auction. UEFA further alleges that Infantino had been discussing the concept with Joshua Kushner for nearly a year before the term sheet was signed, having first discussed the FFE concept in July 2025.

FIFA has challenged the legal basis of these filings, particularly the attempt to use Article 158 of the Swiss criminal code. In filings detailed by Front Office Sports, FIFA argues that the conditions for "criminal mismanagement" are not met because UEFA suffered no financial loss from the proposal. FIFA contends that UEFA's decision to alert the media before filing and its reliance on press reports prove the proceedings are a publicity campaign rather than a legitimate legal effort.

The conflict remains a struggle for the future of the sport's governance. While UEFA's 55 member associations represent a powerful bloc, they do not hold a majority in FIFA's congress. This leaves Infantino with support from other confederations, including CAF and CONMEBOL, as he prepares for his re-election bid in March 2027. The next step depends on whether the courts grant UEFA's discovery requests, which could surface information capable of altering the political calculus ahead of that vote.