The Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) is reportedly gearing up to file criminal charges against FIFA president Gianni Infantino, accusing him of attempting to privatise portions of the World Cup by selling shares to private investors. This development emerges from legal filings that were obtained by Sky News, which reveal that UEFA has issued subpoenas to FIFA and to the financial institutions involved in the United States in order to secure documents related to the proposed transaction. According to the documents, UEFA intends to bring its case before Swiss courts, the jurisdiction where FIFA’s headquarters are located. By doing so, UEFA aims to go beyond the more familiar political maneuver of simply trying to unseat Infantino; it seeks to hold him criminally accountable for what it characterises as a serious breach of fiduciary duty and a mismanagement of FIFA’s assets.
A legal filing that Sky News reviewed 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 plain language, the complaint alleges that the clandestine nature of the deal, the way it was valued, financed and marketed, caused tangible damage to FIFA’s brand, its governing legitimacy, and its commercial partnerships, harming not only the global federation but also every one of its national members. The complaint was filed by UEFA in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, targeting JP Morgan Chase & Co. as well as the proposed lead investor, Thrive Capital, and its chief executive Joshua Kushner.
Kushner is notably the brother of Jared Kushner, who is married to Ivanka Trump and served as a senior adviser in the former U.S. president’s administration. By naming these parties, UEFA is signalling that it believes the alleged misconduct involved both the football governing body and the private‑equity actors that were poised to benefit from the sale. UEFA’s legal strategy also includes actions in Miami, where FIFA’s own legal team is based.
By pursuing parallel proceedings in multiple jurisdictions, UEFA hopes to exert pressure on Infantino and his allies, making it more difficult for the alleged scheme to proceed unnoticed or unchallenged. The broader context of this dispute is the ongoing tension between UEFA and FIFA over the control and commercial exploitation of the World Cup, the sport’s most lucrative event. UEFA, representing 55 national associations across Europe, has long been a powerful voice within world football, but it has increasingly found itself at odds with FIFA’s leadership, especially after Infantino’s election in 2016. Critics have accused Infantino of centralising power, pursuing aggressive commercial expansion, and sidelining the interests of the continental confederations.
If the Swiss authorities decide to move forward with the criminal complaint, Infantino could face investigations under Article 158 of the Swiss Criminal Code, which deals with abuse of office and breach of trust. Potential penalties under Swiss law can include fines, restitution, and even imprisonment, depending on the severity of the findings. Moreover, a criminal conviction could have far‑reaching implications for FIFA’s governance structure, its relationships with sponsors, broadcasters, and host nations, and the overall credibility of its leadership. The allegations also raise questions about the role of private equity in football.
Thrive Capital, a venture‑capital firm known for investing in technology and media start‑ups, was reportedly being positioned as the primary buyer of the World Cup share package. Such a move would have marked a historic shift, turning a traditionally public, member‑owned competition into a partially private asset. Proponents argued that private capital could bring additional resources and innovation, while opponents warned that it could undermine the sport’s democratic principles and open the door to profit‑driven decision‑making that may not align with fans’ interests. Beyond the legal and financial dimensions, the case touches on the reputational stakes for both organisations.
FIFA has already weathered a series of scandals, from the 2015 corruption investigations that led to the indictment of several senior officials, to ongoing concerns about human‑rights issues surrounding World Cup host selections. A new criminal case could further erode confidence among sponsors, broadcasters, and national associations, potentially affecting future revenue streams. For UEFA, the move represents an attempt to assert its authority and protect its members from what it perceives as an overreach by FIFA’s president.
By framing the dispute as a matter of criminal mismanagement rather than merely a policy disagreement, UEFA hopes to rally support from its 55 member associations and from other continental confederations that share concerns about the concentration of power within FIFA. The situation remains fluid, and the ultimate outcome will depend on how Swiss prosecutors interpret the evidence, how U.S.
courts handle the subpoenas and civil claims, and whether any settlement can be reached before the case proceeds to trial. In the meantime, the football world watches closely, aware that the resolution could set a precedent for how the sport’s governing bodies are held accountable for financial decisions that affect the global game.
Play Super 6 for a chance to win £1m! Enter for free.