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 plan to sell portions of the World Cup’s commercial rights to private investors. This development, which emerged from legal paperwork obtained by Sky News, signals a dramatic escalation in the long‑standing power struggle between the two governing bodies of world football. According to the documents, UEFA has issued a subpoena to FIFA and to several financial institutions operating in the United States, demanding the production of records that relate to the proposed transaction.
The subpoena is intended to uncover the details of how the deal was structured, valued, financed and marketed. By obtaining these documents, UEFA hopes to build a case that demonstrates wrongdoing on the part of Infantino and possibly other senior FIFA officials. The intended venue for the criminal proceedings is Switzerland, where FIFA’s headquarters are located in Zurich.
Choosing Swiss jurisdiction is strategic: Swiss law provides a framework for prosecuting corporate and financial misconduct, and any conviction would carry significant symbolic weight, given FIFA’s status as a global sport authority. UEFA’s move therefore goes beyond its earlier attempts to simply remove Infantino from his leadership role; it seeks to hold him personally accountable for what UEFA describes as “criminal mismanagement.” A legal filing that Sky News reviewed quotes UEFA’s position verbatim: “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.” The passage makes clear that UEFA believes the alleged scheme caused real harm not only to FIFA’s brand and governance but also to the commercial interests of the organization’s 211 national members.
Those members include UEFA’s own 55 national associations, which together represent the bulk of European football’s fan base, media rights revenue, and sponsorship income. By framing the case as one of collective injury, UEFA aims to rally support from other confederations and national federations that may have been affected by the perceived privatization of World Cup assets.
In parallel with the Swiss filing, UEFA has also lodged a civil complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. That complaint targets JPMorgan Chase & Co., which acted as a financial intermediary in the proposed deal, as well as Thrive Capital, the lead private‑equity investor slated to acquire a stake in the World Cup commercial package. Thrive’s chief executive, Joshua Kushner, is noted for his familial connection to former President Donald Trump’s son‑in‑law, Jared Kushner, a detail that adds a political dimension to the case.
By filing in New York, UEFA seeks to compel the American banks and investors involved to produce internal communications, due‑diligence reports, and other evidence that could reveal whether the transaction was conducted transparently, at fair market value, and in accordance with FIFA’s statutes. The New York filing also serves as a pressure point because the world governing body’s legal team is based in Miami, Florida, making the United States a convenient arena for UEFA to challenge the financial arrangements. The broader context of this legal offensive is the ongoing debate within global football about the commercialization of the sport’s most prestigious tournament.
Critics argue that selling any portion of the World Cup’s rights to private equity firms undermines the sport’s public‑interest mission and could give undue influence to profit‑driven entities. Supporters of the deal, on the other hand, claim that bringing in private capital can modernize the tournament’s financial model, increase revenue for member associations, and fund grassroots development. Infantino’s supporters contend that the proposed transaction was explored in good faith and that any missteps were the result of complex negotiations rather than criminal intent. They point out that FIFA’s statutes allow for the exploration of new revenue streams, provided that proper governance procedures are followed.
However, UEFA’s legal team argues that the process was shrouded in secrecy, lacked adequate oversight from FIFA’s executive committee, and ultimately jeopardized the integrity of the organization’s commercial framework. If UEFA’s criminal complaint proceeds, Swiss prosecutors will have to determine whether the alleged conduct meets the threshold for a violation of Article 158 of the Swiss Criminal Code, which deals with breaches of fiduciary duty and embezzlement by persons in positions of trust. Potential penalties could include fines, restitution, and even imprisonment for individuals found guilty. Moreover, a conviction could trigger broader reforms within FIFA, possibly leading to stricter controls over future commercial deals and a reevaluation of the governance structures that allowed the deal to be proposed.
The case also raises questions about the role of major financial institutions in sport governance. JPMorgan’s involvement, for example, could be scrutinized for compliance with anti‑money‑laundering regulations and for ensuring that any investment aligns with the ethical standards expected of a global sport entity. Similarly, Thrive Capital’s participation may be examined for potential conflicts of interest, given its connections to high‑profile political families.
While the legal filings are still in their early stages, the public disclosure has already sparked intense debate among fans, journalists, and policymakers. Some view UEFA’s actions as a necessary check on FIFA’s growing power and a defense of the sport’s collective ownership model. Others worry that the litigation could further fragment football’s governance and distract from pressing issues such as player welfare, anti‑racism initiatives, and the development of women’s football.
Regardless of the outcome, the situation underscores the increasingly complex intersection of sport, finance, and law. As football continues to generate billions of dollars in revenue, the mechanisms by which that money is allocated and managed will remain under close scrutiny.
UEFA’s decision to pursue criminal charges, coupled with its civil action in New York, demonstrates a willingness to use every legal avenue available to protect the interests of its member associations and the broader football community. The final resolution may take years, and it will likely involve negotiations, settlements, or perhaps a broader reform package negotiated between FIFA, UEFA, and other stakeholders. For now, the world’s football fans can expect a protracted legal battle that could reshape how the sport’s most lucrative tournament is financed and governed in the future.
Play Super 6 for a chance to win £1m! Enter for free.