FIFA has formally accused the heads of European football organisations of engaging in a campaign of harassment against Gianni Infantino, alleging that they are attempting to sway the upcoming presidential election by disseminating false information about his handling of the World Cup project. The accusation 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 aborted 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 request is made in bad faith and is intended solely to intimidate and harass the incumbent president. The lawyers argue that the European body’s conduct "demonstrates that its application was made in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment." They contend that UEFA is trying to weaponise the legal process to undermine Infantino’s re‑election bid, which is scheduled for March 2027.
UEFA, for its part, has asked the court to produce every document linked to the now‑defunct FFE scheme. The European federation claims it may bring a criminal case against Infantino, accusing him of mismanagement and of allegedly underselling the tournament rights for personal financial gain. In response, FIFA’s legal team dismisses these allegations as baseless, stating, "With no basis whatsoever, UEFA suggests that Mr Infantino sought to profit personally from the FFE proposal." The dispute has erupted at a particularly volatile moment, as Infantino prepares to run for a fourth term as FIFA president.
UEFA has already withdrawn its formal support for his candidacy, although it has not yet presented an alternative contender ahead of the November 18 deadline for candidate submissions. The federation says it has lost confidence in Infantino following the collapse of the FFE project and is now working to identify a credible challenger who can contest the March 2027 election. FIFA’s submission to the court emphasizes the timing of UEFA’s legal maneuver, pointing out that the filing was made just weeks before the FIFA election, a period when any attempt to cast doubt on Infantino’s integrity could have a disproportionate impact.
The filing reads, "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 legal battle underscores a deeper power struggle within global football governance.
The FFE initiative, which aimed to commercialise a share of the World Cup’s future revenues by inviting private investors, was abandoned after intense scrutiny and criticism. While FIFA argues that the scheme’s demise was a strategic decision made in the sport’s best interests, UEFA portrays it as a missed opportunity and a sign of mismanagement by the president. Beyond the immediate legal wrangling, the controversy raises broader questions about transparency, accountability, and the influence of external investors in football’s most lucrative events.
Critics of the FFE model warned that selling future World Cup revenue streams could compromise the sport’s independence and open the door to undue commercial pressure. Supporters, however, argued that such a move could inject much‑needed capital into the game, especially for developing football nations. The clash between FIFA and UEFA therefore reflects divergent visions for the sport’s financial future.
As the deadline for candidate nominations approaches, the stakes are high. If UEFA succeeds in presenting a viable alternative, the 2027 election could become a tightly contested showdown, potentially reshaping the power dynamics at the top of world football. Conversely, if the court dismisses UEFA’s request for evidence and the federation fails to field a candidate, Infantino may secure a fourth term with relatively little opposition, allowing him to continue his agenda of expanding football’s global reach and commercial footprint.
Regardless of the outcome, the legal filings illustrate how deeply intertwined sport, law, and politics have become in the modern era. Both organisations are leveraging legal mechanisms to protect their strategic interests, while also attempting to shape public perception through media narratives. The repeated references to "spreading misinformation" highlight the importance each side places on controlling the narrative surrounding the FFE proposal and Infantino’s leadership. In summary, FIFA’s Miami filing accuses UEFA of orchestrating a harassment campaign aimed at undermining Gianni Infantino ahead of his re‑election, claiming that UEFA’s request for documents is a tactical move designed to influence the vote.
UEFA counters by alleging mismanagement and potential personal profit by Infantino, seeking to expose what it describes as a failed commercial venture. The dispute, set against the backdrop of a looming presidential election, underscores a broader contest over the direction of football’s governance and its financial strategies. The court’s decision on whether to grant UEFA’s evidence request will likely have significant ramifications for the balance of power within the sport, as well as for the transparency and accountability of its highest officials.