The Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) is reportedly gearing up to file criminal charges against Gianni Infantino, the president of FIFA, over his involvement in a scheme to sell portions of World Cup rights to private investors. This development comes from legal documents that were obtained by Sky News, which reveal that UEFA has issued subpoenas to both FIFA and several financial institutions operating in the United States in order to collect evidence related to the controversial transaction.
According to the filings, the intended lawsuit will be filed in Switzerland, the country where FIFA’s headquarters are located. By choosing the Swiss jurisdiction, UEFA aims to confront Infantino and any other individuals who may have played a role in what it describes as a serious breach of fiduciary duty. The move represents a significant escalation in UEFA’s strategy, which has previously focused mainly on political pressure and attempts to remove Infantino from his position.
This time, however, the governing body is pursuing a criminal route, seeking to hold the FIFA chief and possibly his advisers accountable under Swiss law. A document reviewed by Sky News quotes UEFA’s legal team as stating: "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." This language underscores the breadth of the accusations, suggesting that the alleged misconduct not only harmed FIFA’s brand and governance but also jeopardised the commercial interests of all its member associations, many of which rely heavily on World Cup revenues. The legal action was initially lodged in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In that filing, UEFA named JP Morgan Bank as a defendant, along with Thrive Capital, a venture‑capital firm that was positioned as the lead investor in the proposed deal.
Thrive’s chief executive, Joshua Kushner, is also identified in the complaint; he is the brother of Jared Kushner, who is married to Ivanka Trump and served as a senior advisor to former President Donald Trump. By targeting these financial actors, UEFA appears to be broadening the scope of responsibility beyond the football administration itself, arguing that the banks and investors who facilitated the transaction share in the culpability for any alleged wrongdoing. UEFA’s choice to file a parallel action in Miami—where FIFA’s legal department maintains an office—further illustrates the organization’s determination to pursue the case on multiple fronts. The dual‑venue approach could increase pressure on FIFA’s legal team, forcing them to allocate resources to defend against lawsuits in both Swiss and U.S.
courts. It also signals to the broader football community that UEFA is willing to use all available legal mechanisms to protect the integrity of the sport’s most lucrative event. The background to this dispute lies in a proposal, reportedly floated in early 2023, to partially privatise the commercial rights to the World Cup. Under the plan, a consortium of private investors would have been granted a share of future broadcasting, sponsorship and merchandising revenues in exchange for an upfront payment to FIFA.
Critics argued that such a move would undermine the principle of collective ownership that underpins the global game, potentially creating a conflict of interest between profit‑driven investors and the sport’s governing bodies. Infantino’s supporters claimed the deal would inject much‑needed cash into FIFA’s finances, but opponents—including several European national associations—voiced concerns about transparency, valuation methodology and the possible erosion of FIFA’s control over its flagship tournament. The legal filings allege that the transaction was conducted in secrecy, without proper oversight from FIFA’s executive committee or its member associations.
They claim that the valuation of the World Cup rights was artificially inflated, benefitting the private investors while leaving FIFA and its members with a diminished share of future earnings. Moreover, the documents suggest that the deal’s marketing and financing structure were designed to obscure the true beneficiaries, thereby violating Swiss criminal statutes that prohibit abuse of office and fraudulent management of assets. If UEFA’s criminal complaints succeed, the ramifications could be far‑reaching.
A conviction under Article 158 of the Swiss Criminal Code could result in substantial fines, imprisonment for the individuals involved, and a ban from holding any position of trust within FIFA or its affiliated bodies. In addition, the case could trigger a broader investigation into FIFA’s financial practices, potentially leading to reforms that increase transparency and strengthen the role of member associations in decision‑making processes. Beyond the legal consequences, the controversy highlights a growing tension between European football authorities and FIFA’s leadership.
UEFA, representing 55 national associations and more than 200 clubs, has long been a powerful stakeholder in the sport’s governance. Its willingness to confront the FIFA president in a criminal court signals a shift from diplomatic negotiations to a more confrontational stance, reflecting frustrations over perceived overreach and a lack of accountability at the global level.
The situation also raises questions about the involvement of major financial institutions in sports governance. By naming JP Morgan and Thrive Capital, UEFA is drawing attention to the role that banks and venture‑capital firms play in structuring deals that can have profound implications for the sport’s economics and its public image. The outcome of these lawsuits may set precedents for how financial intermediaries are regulated when they engage with sports entities.
While the legal battle unfolds, fans and stakeholders are reminded of the broader context: the World Cup remains the most watched and financially significant sporting event on the planet. Any threat to its integrity, whether through opaque commercial arrangements or alleged criminal conduct, is likely to provoke strong reactions from governments, sponsors, broadcasters and the millions of supporters worldwide.
As of now, UEFA’s complaints are still in the filing stage, and no court has yet rendered a judgment. However, the very act of bringing criminal charges signals that the governing body is prepared to use every tool at its disposal to protect the sport’s reputation and ensure that the World Cup continues to be managed in a manner that serves the interests of all its members, not just a select group of investors.
Play Super 6 for a chance to win £1m! Enter for free.