The Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) is reportedly gearing up to file criminal charges against FIFA’s president, Gianni Infantino, over a controversial plan to sell portions of the World Cup to private investors. According to legal documents obtained by Sky News, UEFA has issued subpoenas to FIFA and to several American financial institutions in order to secure records that illuminate the details of the proposed transaction.
The filings indicate that the forthcoming lawsuit will be filed in Switzerland, the country that hosts FIFA’s headquarters. By choosing the Swiss jurisdiction, UEFA is aiming to confront the alleged misconduct at the very heart of the organization that governs world football. This step marks a dramatic escalation in UEFA’s strategy, which has moved beyond simply seeking Infantino’s removal from office and now seeks to hold him criminally accountable for what UEFA describes as a reckless attempt to privatise a segment of the World Cup.
A legal memorandum reviewed by Sky News 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." In plain language, UEFA alleges that the scheme was concealed, poorly valued, and financed in a manner that damaged FIFA’s brand, its governing legitimacy, and its commercial partnerships, harming not only the global governing body but also every national association that falls under its umbrella. The complaint was originally lodged in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. It names JP Morgan Bank as a defendant, alongside the proposed lead investor, Thrive Capital, and its chief executive, Joshua Kushner. Joshua Kushner is notably the brother of Jared Kushner, who is married to former President Donald Trump’s daughter, adding a layer of political intrigue to the financial side of the case.
By targeting these parties in a U.S. court, UEFA hopes to compel the release of documents that could substantiate its allegations about how the deal was structured and financed.
Beyond the New York filing, UEFA is also pursuing legal action in Miami, where FIFA’s legal department is based. The dual‑front approach—pressuring both American and Swiss courts—suggests that UEFA is determined to leave no stone unturned in its effort to expose what it perceives as a breach of fiduciary duty and a violation of both Swiss criminal law and FIFA’s own statutes. The background to the controversy involves a proposal, reportedly discussed in private meetings, to sell a share of the commercial rights to the 2026 World Cup to private investors. Proponents argued that such a move could generate immediate cash flow for FIFA, potentially funding development projects and other initiatives.
Critics, however, warned that privatising any portion of the tournament’s revenue stream would undermine the sport’s global governance model, set a dangerous precedent for future tournaments, and could erode the trust of member associations that rely on FIFA’s equitable distribution of profits. UEFA’s reaction reflects broader concerns within the European football community.
Many European national associations have expressed unease about any attempt to commercialise the World Cup beyond the existing framework, fearing that it could create a two‑tier system where wealthy private entities gain disproportionate influence over the sport’s most prestigious competition. The alleged secrecy surrounding the deal—described in the legal documents as "secretive structuring"—has only heightened these worries, prompting calls for greater transparency and accountability from FIFA’s leadership. If UEFA’s criminal complaint proceeds, it could have far‑reaching implications. Under Article 158 of the Swiss Criminal Code, individuals found guilty of criminal mismanagement can face severe penalties, including fines and imprisonment.
Moreover, a conviction could tarnish Infantino’s reputation, potentially accelerating calls from member associations for his resignation or removal. It could also trigger a broader review of FIFA’s governance practices, prompting reforms aimed at preventing similar attempts to monetize the World Cup in ways that conflict with the sport’s public‑interest mission. The legal battle is still in its early stages, and both sides are expected to file extensive evidence and witness statements.
FIFA’s legal team, based in Miami, will likely argue that the proposed transaction was explored in good faith and that any discussions were consistent with FIFA’s strategic objectives. UEFA, on the other hand, will aim to demonstrate that the plan was not only poorly conceived but also deliberately concealed from the broader football community, thereby causing tangible harm to the organization’s reputation and financial stability. As the case unfolds, stakeholders across the football world—from club owners to fans—will be watching closely. The outcome could reshape the relationship between football’s governing bodies and the private sector, setting new precedents for how the sport’s most lucrative events are financed and managed.
Whether the Swiss courts will entertain UEFA’s criminal claims remains to be seen, but the very act of filing signals a decisive shift in UEFA’s willingness to challenge FIFA’s leadership through legal channels, rather than relying solely on diplomatic or political pressure. In the meantime, the broader football community continues to engage with the story, as it raises fundamental questions about the balance between commercial ambition and the stewardship of the game’s global heritage.
The case underscores the delicate interplay between sport, law, and finance, and it will likely remain a focal point of discussion among administrators, legal experts, and fans alike.