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 World Cup rights to private investors. This development emerges from legal paperwork that Sky News obtained, which details UEFA's strategy to subpoena FIFA and the financial institutions involved, seeking documents from the United States that illuminate the alleged scheme.
According to the filings, UEFA intends to launch the criminal proceedings in Switzerland, the nation that houses FIFA's headquarters. By doing so, UEFA hopes to go beyond merely attempting to remove Infantino from his position; it aims to hold him accountable for what it describes as an unlawful attempt to privatise part of the World Cup tournament.
A legal memorandum seen by Sky News quotes UEFA 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." The document outlines that the alleged misconduct involves a covert arrangement to value, finance and market a transaction that, in UEFA's view, caused tangible harm to FIFA's brand, its governing legitimacy and its commercial partnerships. The claim is that this damage extends not only to FIFA itself but also to the entire football family of 211 national associations, of which UEFA represents 55. The lawsuit was initially filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
In that filing, UEFA named JP Morgan Bank as a defendant, alongside the prospective lead investor Thrive Capital and its chief executive Joshua Kushner. Joshua Kushner is notably the brother of Jared Kushner, who is married to the daughter of former U.S.
President Donald Trump, adding a layer of political intrigue to the case. UEFA's legal strategy appears to be multi‑jurisdictional. While the criminal complaint is slated for Swiss courts, the organization is also pursuing civil actions in the United States, particularly in Miami, where FIFA's legal department is based.
By targeting both the financial intermediaries and the prospective investors, UEFA hopes to create a comprehensive legal front that can compel the disclosure of all relevant documents and potentially halt any further privatization efforts. The move is unprecedented in modern football governance.
Historically, disputes between UEFA and FIFA have centered on competition formats, scheduling, and revenue sharing, but criminal allegations of this magnitude are rare. If successful, the case could set a legal precedent that limits the ability of football's governing bodies to engage in private‑sector deals without transparent oversight.
Critics of the proposed transaction argue that selling World Cup shares to private capital could undermine the sport's integrity, turning a globally celebrated public event into a profit‑driven enterprise. They contend that such a shift might prioritize the interests of investors over those of fans, players and national associations, potentially influencing everything from tournament locations to broadcasting rights. Supporters of the deal, on the other hand, claim that bringing in private capital could inject much‑needed funding into the sport, allowing for infrastructure upgrades, grassroots development and enhanced prize money. They argue that the modern football economy requires innovative financing models to keep pace with the sport's rapid commercial growth.
UEFA's decision to pursue criminal charges reflects a broader power struggle within the sport. Since taking office, Infantino has pursued a series of reforms aimed at expanding FIFA's global footprint, including proposals for additional World Cup tournaments and a greater emphasis on commercial partnerships. Some member associations, particularly in Europe, have expressed concern that these initiatives concentrate too much authority in the FIFA presidency and diminish the voice of regional bodies. By invoking Article 158 of the Swiss Criminal Code, which deals with mismanagement and breach of fiduciary duty, UEFA is framing the alleged actions as not merely a policy disagreement but as a criminal offense that warrants prosecution.
The Swiss code stipulates severe penalties for officials who, through negligence or intentional misconduct, cause significant damage to an organization. The case is still in its early stages, and many details remain undisclosed.
UEFA has yet to comment publicly on the filings, and FIFA has declined to comment on the allegations. Legal experts suggest that the outcome will hinge on the ability of UEFA to demonstrate concrete evidence of wrongdoing, such as financial records, internal communications and testimonies from involved parties. Regardless of the final verdict, the litigation underscores the growing tension between football's two most powerful governing bodies. It also highlights the increasing scrutiny placed on the sport's financial dealings, especially as billions of dollars flow through sponsorships, broadcasting contracts and tournament hosting fees.
As the situation unfolds, stakeholders across the football world—including clubs, national associations, sponsors and fans—will be watching closely. The implications of a criminal conviction could reverberate far beyond the individuals named in the complaint, potentially reshaping how FIFA approaches commercial partnerships and how UEFA asserts its authority in safeguarding the sport's public interest. For now, the legal battle is set to proceed on multiple fronts, with Swiss prosecutors, U.S.
courts and possibly other jurisdictions all playing a role in determining the fate of the alleged World Cup privatization scheme.