The Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) is reportedly gearing up to file criminal charges against FIFA President Gianni Infantino in connection with a controversial effort to sell portions of the World Cup to private investors. This development emerged from legal filings that were obtained by Sky News, shedding light on a complex dispute that could have far‑reaching implications for global football governance.
According to the documents, UEFA has issued subpoenas to FIFA and to several financial institutions operating in the United States, demanding the production of records that pertain to the proposed transaction. The goal of these subpoenas is to gather evidence about how the deal was structured, valued, financed, and marketed. Although the subpoenas target entities in the U.S., UEFA’s intended legal action will be filed in Switzerland, the country that houses FIFA’s headquarters and where Swiss criminal law would apply. The move represents a significant escalation for UEFA.
Until now, the European governing body’s public stance had largely centered on attempts to remove Infantino from his position, citing concerns over the perceived privatization of a portion of the World Cup. By pursuing criminal proceedings, UEFA is moving beyond political pressure and into the realm of formal judicial accountability.
The legal filing that Sky News reviewed explicitly states: "UEFA and other interested parties are preparing to bring criminal claims in Switzerland against Infantino and possibly other FIFA officials and advisors for criminal mismanagement under Article 158 of the Swiss Criminal Code and such further or alternative charges as the developed factual record may support, arising out of the secretive structuring, valuation, financing, and marketing of a transaction that inflicted direct and concrete injury on FIFA's reputation, governance authority, and commercial relationships to the detriment of FIFA as well as its 211 members, including UEFA's 55 member associations." In practical terms, the complaint alleges that the alleged transaction caused tangible harm to FIFA’s brand, its governing authority, and its commercial partnerships. By attempting to commercialize a segment of the World Cup—an event traditionally owned and managed wholly by the sport’s global governing body—Infantino and his associates are accused of compromising the integrity of the competition and jeopardizing the interests of the 211 national associations that comprise FIFA, among them UEFA’s own 55 member federations. The filing also reveals that UEFA has taken steps to involve U.S.
courts. A separate application was submitted to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming JP Morgan Chase & Co.
as a defendant, along with Thrive Capital, a venture‑capital firm slated to be the lead investor in the deal. Thrive’s chief executive, Joshua Kushner, is noted for his familial connection to former President Donald Trump—he is the brother of Jared Kushner, Trump’s son‑in‑law. By targeting these financial actors, UEFA appears to be seeking to hold not only the football officials but also the private financiers accountable for what it alleges is a breach of fiduciary duty and a violation of Swiss criminal statutes.
The strategy of filing parallel actions in both Switzerland and the United States underscores UEFA’s determination to pursue the matter on multiple legal fronts. While the Swiss criminal proceedings would directly address alleged violations of Swiss law, the U.S. lawsuit aims to compel the production of documents and potentially freeze assets or halt the transaction by leveraging American jurisdiction over the banks and investment firms involved. UEFA’s legal campaign is also notable for its geographic focus on Miami, where FIFA’s legal department is based.
By targeting the organization’s legal hub, UEFA hopes to apply pressure where FIFA’s counsel operates daily, potentially forcing a more rapid response or settlement. If successful, the criminal case could result in severe consequences for Infantino, ranging from fines to imprisonment, depending on the outcome of any Swiss criminal trial.
Moreover, it could set a precedent for how football’s governing bodies handle attempts to commercialize core elements of the sport’s most prestigious tournaments. The case may also prompt a broader conversation within the football community about the limits of private investment in events that have traditionally been viewed as public goods, owned collectively by the sport’s worldwide membership. Beyond the immediate legal ramifications, the controversy highlights a growing tension between the commercial ambitions of football’s leadership and the expectations of its constituent members.
Many national associations, especially those in Europe, have expressed concern that turning parts of the World Cup into a profit‑driven venture could erode the competition’s cultural significance and undermine the principle of equal representation among member nations. In response to the unfolding legal saga, several UEFA member associations have issued statements emphasizing the need for transparency, accountability, and the preservation of football’s core values. They argue that any move to privatize aspects of the World Cup must be subject to rigorous oversight and must not compromise the sport’s integrity or the equitable distribution of revenues.
The situation remains fluid, and the final outcome will depend on the courts’ willingness to entertain the allegations, the strength of the evidence gathered through the subpoenas, and the political dynamics within both FIFA and UEFA. As the case proceeds, stakeholders across the football world—including clubs, players, sponsors, and fans—will be watching closely to see whether the governing bodies can resolve this dispute without further damaging the sport’s global reputation. For now, UEFA’s decision to pursue criminal claims marks a bold and unprecedented step in the ongoing power struggle within international football, signaling that the organization is prepared to use every legal tool at its disposal to protect the interests of its members and to challenge what it perceives as an overreach by FIFA’s leadership. Play Super 6 for a chance to win £1m!
Enter for free.