FIFA has publicly charged the European football governing body, UEFA, with orchestrating a coordinated smear campaign aimed at President Gianni Infantino. The accusation arises amid a legal dispute over a previously abandoned proposal to sell a portion of the World Cup commercial rights to private investors. UEFA has taken the unusual step of filing lawsuits in U.S.
courts, seeking discovery that could shed light on the controversial financing plan. In addition, UEFA has warned that it may pursue criminal proceedings against Infantino in Switzerland, where FIFA’s headquarters are located.
This dual‑track legal strategy underscores the intensity of the conflict between the two organisations. In response, FIFA submitted a brief to a New York federal court, describing UEFA’s filings as little more than “press releases” masquerading as legal pleadings. The FIFA document states: "While these applications are styled as legal pleadings with captions and docket numbers, they are little more than press releases in further support of UEFA's smear campaign against FIFA and its leadership." The underlying power struggle is evident: UEFA appears to be positioning itself to force Infantino out of office, either by prompting his resignation or by influencing the upcoming FIFA presidential election scheduled for March. The stakes are high, as the outcome could reshape the governance of world football for years to come.
FIFA’s legal team argues that UEFA’s request for discovery is fundamentally flawed. They claim UEFA is attempting to obtain evidence to support a foreign criminal proceeding that does not exist, and that UEFA lacks any legal authority to initiate such a process. "UEFA's application suffers from a fundamental defect: UEFA seeks discovery in aid of a foreign criminal proceeding that does not exist and that UEFA admittedly lacks the authority to initiate," the FIFA lawyers wrote.
At the heart of the dispute is the aborted $20 billion initiative to create a World Cup subsidiary that would have allowed private investors to purchase a share of the tournament’s commercial revenues. Infantino’s senior adviser, Carlos Cordeiro, later described the venture as "a bad deal for football" when he stepped down, a comment that was relayed to Sky News.
Earlier reports indicated that, as early as June, plans were in motion to secure up to $4.2 billion from private capital by October of that year. FIFA, however, maintains that the proposal never progressed beyond the concept stage. According to FIFA’s filing, the plan required approval from both the member associations and the FIFA Council before any funds could be raised. The organisation insists that the proposal was merely a draft that never received the necessary endorsements.
From UEFA’s perspective, the move to involve the courts is seen as an attempt to protect its own competitive interests. UEFA alleges that the proposed financing scheme would have empowered smaller football nations, allowing them to develop talent and infrastructure that could eventually challenge the dominance of Europe’s elite clubs and tournaments.
By bolstering the FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE) program, UEFA fears a shift in the global football balance that would diminish its market power and reduce the commercial appeal of its flagship competitions. FIFA counters this narrative by asserting that any disagreements between the two bodies should be resolved within the sport’s established governance structures, not through external litigation.
The Southern District of New York filing reads: "Rather than participate in that democratic process, UEFA issued a press release – the beginning of a weeks-long smear campaign against FIFA and its leadership." The document further argues that UEFA’s economic motives are driven by a desire to keep smaller football associations financially weak, thereby preserving the status quo in which European football remains the most lucrative and influential segment of the sport. "If soccer is strengthened in the developing world, global competition increases, which ultimately reduces UEFA's market power and provides more competition for its flagship tournaments," the FIFA filing contends. According to FIFA, the FFE initiative would have facilitated greater investment in grassroots programs, stadium upgrades, and coaching education in less affluent member nations.
This, in turn, could have encouraged talented players to remain in their home leagues rather than seeking opportunities abroad, thereby enriching domestic competitions and expanding the global fan base. Sky Sports News has reported that within UEFA there is a sentiment that, if there is nothing incriminating in the documents, they should simply be disclosed.
Sources suggest that releasing the materials related to the FFE proposal could accelerate the resolution of the dispute and potentially defuse the escalating tension. In summary, the clash between FIFA and UEFA reflects a broader struggle over the future financial architecture of world football.
While FIFA defends the aborted private‑investment plan as a tentative idea that never left the drafting table, UEFA frames the same proposal as a threat to its commercial dominance. Both organisations have now turned to the courts to settle a battle that could have lasting implications for how the sport is funded, governed, and marketed on a global scale.