FIFA has formally alleged that senior officials within European football have engaged in a campaign of harassment directed at Gianni Infantino, the organisation's president, and have attempted to sway the upcoming presidential election by disseminating false information about his handling of the World Cup project. The accusations appear 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 release of all documentation pertaining to the failed attempt to sell shares in the World Cup to private investors, a plan that was marketed under the name FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE).
According to FIFA’s counsel, UEFA’s actions are "bad‑faith" and are intended solely to harass the incumbent president. The filing states: "UEFA's conduct demonstrates that its application was made in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment." The lawyers further argue that the European body’s demand for the evidence is a thinly veiled effort to undermine Infantino’s reputation ahead of the election cycle. UEFA, for its part, has asked the court to produce every document related to the abandoned FFE initiative. The confederation claims it could bring criminal charges against Infantino, alleging that he deliberately undervalued the tournament’s commercial potential for personal financial gain.
In response, FIFA’s legal team dismisses these allegations as baseless, noting: "With no basis whatsoever, UEFA suggests that Mr Infantino sought to profit personally from the FFE proposal." The dispute has erupted at a particularly sensitive moment. Infantino is preparing to run for a fourth term in the FIFA presidential election scheduled for March 2027. While UEFA has withdrawn its formal support for the incumbent, it has not yet put forward an alternative candidate, even though the deadline for candidate nominations is set for 18 November. The timing of UEFA’s legal maneuver, therefore, appears to many observers as a strategic move to influence the election narrative.
FIFA’s submission highlights this timing, stating: "Just before FIFA's election, UEFA filed this application [and three others] spreading misinformation regarding Mr Infantino. This court should reject any attempt to influence FIFA's presidential election based on these grounds." The filing urges the court to dismiss UEFA’s request and to prevent any further attempts to manipulate the electoral process through legal pressure. UEFA’s leadership has publicly expressed a loss of confidence in Infantino following the abandonment of the FFE project. The confederation says it is actively searching for a credible alternative candidate who can challenge the president in next year’s vote.
However, the organization has not yet announced a name, leaving the field of potential challengers open and fueling speculation within the global football community. The broader context of this legal clash is the ongoing debate over the commercial future of the World Cup. The FFE proposal, which sought to invite private investors to purchase stakes in the tournament, was seen by some as a way to inject fresh capital and modernise the event’s financing structure. Critics, including UEFA, argued that the plan could compromise the sport’s integrity and give undue advantage to wealthy stakeholders.
The proposal was eventually shelved, but the fallout continues to reverberate through the sport’s governance. In addition to the legal wrangling, the dispute has sparked a series of public statements from both sides. FIFA’s attorneys have repeatedly underscored the lack of any substantive evidence linking Infantino to personal profit from the FFE scheme.
They contend that UEFA’s accusations are purely political, designed to tarnish the president’s image and rally support for a rival. Conversely, UEFA officials maintain that their concerns are rooted in genuine apprehension about mismanagement and the potential for corruption within FIFA’s upper echelons.
The stakes are high. If Infantino secures a fourth term, he will continue to shape the sport’s global agenda, including the rollout of new tournaments, reforms to the World Cup format, and the allocation of hosting rights. Opponents argue that a prolonged tenure could entrench existing power structures and limit opportunities for reform.
Supporters, however, point to Infantino’s track record of expanding the sport’s reach, increasing revenues, and championing diversity initiatives. As the legal battle proceeds, the international football community watches closely. The outcome could set a precedent for how internal disputes are handled within the sport’s governing bodies and may influence the transparency of future elections.
Whether the court will side with FIFA and block UEFA’s evidence request remains to be seen, but the filing makes clear that FIFA intends to fight any attempt to sway the upcoming vote through what it describes as "harassment" and "misinformation." Regardless of the legal outcome, the episode underscores the deepening rift between FIFA and its European counterpart. Both organisations share the common goal of promoting football worldwide, yet their divergent visions for governance and commercial strategy have led to a confrontational standoff that could reshape the sport’s leadership landscape for years to come.