The Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) is reportedly preparing to file criminal charges against Gianni Infantino, the president of FIFA, over a controversial plan to sell portions of the World Cup to private investors. The information comes from legal documents that were obtained by Sky News, which reveal that UEFA has issued subpoenas to FIFA and several financial institutions based in the United States in order to gather evidence about the alleged transaction. According to the filings, UEFA intends to bring the case before a Swiss court, the jurisdiction where FIFA’s headquarters are located. This step marks a significant escalation in UEFA’s strategy, which has moved beyond merely seeking Infantino’s removal from office.
The governing body now appears to be targeting the former’s alleged involvement in a scheme that would have partially privatized the world’s most prestigious football tournament. A document viewed 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." In plain language, UEFA alleges that the proposed deal was conducted in secrecy, was poorly valued, and was financed in a way that damaged the global governing body’s brand, its governance credibility, and its commercial partnerships. The alleged harm extends not only to FIFA itself but also to every national federation that belongs to the organization, including all of UEFA’s own member associations. The legal maneuver began with an application filed by UEFA in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The complaint names JP Morgan Bank as a defendant, along with Thrive Capital, a venture‑capital firm that was slated to act as the lead investor in the transaction. Thrive’s chief executive, Joshua Kushner, is also singled out; he is the brother of Jared Kushner, who is married to Ivanka Trump and served as a senior adviser to former President Donald Trump. By naming these parties, UEFA is seeking to hold both the financial intermediaries and the private investors accountable for what it describes as a reckless and clandestine effort to commercialize a portion of the World Cup.
UEFA’s choice of legal venues is noteworthy. While the primary complaint is aimed at Swiss courts, the organization has also lodged a related suit in a U.S.
federal court in Miami, where FIFA’s legal department is headquartered. This dual‑track approach suggests that UEFA is attempting to apply pressure on multiple fronts, leveraging both Swiss criminal law and U.S. civil litigation to compel a thorough investigation and, if warranted, punitive action.
The background to the dispute dates back to early 2024, when rumors began circulating that FIFA was exploring ways to generate additional revenue by selling minority stakes in the World Cup brand to private equity investors. Proponents of the idea argued that such a move could inject fresh capital into the sport, fund grassroots development, and modernize the tournament’s commercial model. Critics, however, warned that the World Cup is a public good that belongs to the global football community, and that privatizing any part of it could undermine the sport’s integrity, create conflicts of interest, and erode the authority of FIFA’s governing structures.
Infantino, who has been at the helm of FIFA since 2016, reportedly championed the proposal, presenting it as a way to diversify the organization’s income streams beyond traditional broadcasting and sponsorship deals. According to sources close to the matter, the plan involved a complex web of offshore entities, valuation assessments that were not independently verified, and a marketing campaign that was kept under wraps until the final stages of negotiation. UEFA alleges that this lack of transparency violated Swiss criminal statutes that prohibit the mismanagement of assets belonging to a public institution.
If UEFA’s allegations are proven, the consequences could be severe. Under Article 158 of the Swiss Criminal Code, individuals found guilty of criminal mismanagement can face substantial fines and imprisonment. Moreover, a conviction could trigger a cascade of reforms within FIFA, potentially leading to a restructuring of its leadership, a re‑examination of its governance charter, and stricter oversight of any future commercial ventures. The broader football community is watching the case closely.
Many national associations, especially those from smaller European nations, have expressed concern that the sale of World Cup rights could marginalize their interests and diminish their influence within the sport. UEFA’s 55 member associations, which collectively represent a significant portion of FIFA’s voting power, stand to benefit from a legal outcome that reinforces the principle that the World Cup remains a collective, non‑commercial asset. In addition to the legal ramifications, the dispute raises important questions about the future of football financing.
As the sport continues to generate billions of dollars in revenue, governing bodies are under increasing pressure to find innovative ways to fund development projects, improve player welfare, and expand the game’s global reach. However, the Infantino proposal illustrates the delicate balance between commercial ambition and the stewardship of a cultural institution that belongs to fans worldwide. While UEFA’s legal filings are still pending, the organization has made it clear that it will pursue all available avenues to protect the integrity of the World Cup and the interests of its members.
The case underscores the growing tension between FIFA’s leadership and the continental confederations, a dynamic that could reshape the governance landscape of international football for years to come. As the situation unfolds, stakeholders from clubs, players, sponsors, and supporters alike will be closely monitoring the proceedings, hoping that a transparent and fair resolution will emerge—one that safeguards the sport’s heritage while allowing for responsible, sustainable growth.