FIFA has formally accused the senior officials of European football of engaging in a campaign of harassment against Gianni Infantino, claiming they are attempting to sway the upcoming presidential election by disseminating false information about his handling of the World Cup project. The allegation appears in a legal filing submitted in Miami, which was obtained by Sky News. In the document, FIFA seeks to block UEFA’s request for the full set of documents related to the proposed sale of World Cup shares to private investors, a plan that was known as the FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE) initiative.
According to FIFA’s counsel, "UEFA’s conduct shows that its application was filed in bad faith and is intended to harass the President." The filing argues that UEFA’s request is not a legitimate investigative effort but rather a strategic move designed to undermine Infantino’s reputation ahead of the 2027 election cycle. UEFA, for its part, has asked the court to compel the release of every piece of paperwork concerning the now‑defunct FIFA Forward Enterprise scheme. The European body contends that the abandoned project could form the basis of a criminal mismanagement case against Infantino, alleging that he deliberately undervalued the tournament rights in order to secure personal financial gain.
FIFA’s lawyers counter this narrative, stating, "There is absolutely no evidence that Mr. Infantino attempted to profit personally from the FFE proposal; UEFA’s accusations are baseless." The dispute has erupted at a particularly sensitive moment, as Infantino is preparing to run for a fourth term as FIFA president in the March 2027 election. While UEFA has withdrawn its formal endorsement of Infantino, it has not yet put forward an alternative candidate, leaving the field open but uncertain as the November 18 deadline for candidate submissions approaches.
In its legal submission, FIFA highlights the timing of UEFA’s filing, noting that the request was lodged just weeks before the election, a period when any negative publicity could have a disproportionate impact on voter perception. "Just before FIFA’s election, UEFA submitted this application and three additional filings that spread misinformation about Mr.
Infantino," the document reads. "This court should dismiss any attempt to influence the presidential election on these grounds." UEFA’s spokesperson has reiterated that the European federation has lost confidence in Infantino’s leadership, especially after the abandonment of the FFE project. The organization claims it is actively searching for a credible alternative candidate who can present a viable challenge in next year’s contest.
However, FIFA’s filing suggests that UEFA’s motives are less about finding a better leader and more about creating a political weapon to be used in the upcoming vote. The legal battle underscores a broader power struggle within world football, where the governance of the sport’s most lucrative events—particularly the World Cup—has become a flashpoint for competing interests.
The FFE proposal, which aimed to commercialise a portion of the World Cup’s future revenue streams by selling shares to private investors, was seen by some as an innovative way to generate new income for the sport. Critics, however, warned that it could open the door to excessive commercialisation and diminish FIFA’s control over the tournament. While the FFE plan never came to fruition, the fallout continues to reverberate.
UEFA’s request for documents is part of a larger effort to scrutinise the decision‑making process that led to the scheme’s cancellation. FIFA argues that the European body’s pursuit of these records is a pretext for political sabotage, not a genuine quest for transparency. Legal experts note that the case will likely hinge on whether the court views UEFA’s request as a legitimate discovery effort or as an attempt to weaponise information for electoral gain.
If the judge sides with FIFA, UEFA could be barred from accessing the documents, limiting its ability to build a case against Infantino. Conversely, if the court grants UEFA’s request, the federation may obtain material that could be used to fuel a campaign of criticism ahead of the election.
The broader implications extend beyond the two organisations. A ruling in favour of FIFA could reinforce the incumbent’s position and discourage other member associations from launching similar legal challenges.
A decision that favours UEFA, on the other hand, might embolden dissenting voices within the sport’s governance structure, potentially leading to further fragmentation and calls for reform. As the deadline for candidate nominations draws near, both sides are ramping up their legal and public‑relations strategies.
Infantino’s campaign is expected to stress continuity, experience, and the ongoing projects that have been launched under his tenure, while UEFA and its allies are likely to focus on issues of accountability, financial stewardship, and the need for fresh leadership. Regardless of the outcome, the dispute highlights the increasingly politicised nature of football administration, where legal filings, media narratives, and strategic timing all play a role in shaping the future of the sport’s highest offices.
The court’s decision will not only determine the immediate availability of documents but could also set a precedent for how internal disagreements are managed within the global football community. The saga continues to unfold, with both FIFA and UEFA preparing their arguments for the upcoming hearing. Stakeholders across the football world are watching closely, aware that the resolution could influence the direction of the sport for years to come, especially as the next World Cup approaches and the financial stakes grow ever higher.