The crisis triggered by the failed FIFA Forward Enterprise -FFE- proposal has brought a legal setback for the US subsidiaries of FIFA, after a judge rejected their request to intervene in proceedings through which UEFA is seeking evidence about the venture. The ruling, issued on 12 November by Jeannette Vargas in New York, allows the European body’s applications to continue, in connection with a potential criminal complaint in Switzerland against Gianni Infantino and other officials. Its scope is procedural: it is not a conviction, makes no finding of criminal wrongdoing and does not itself order the disclosure of the requested documents.
FIFA (Americas) and FWC2026 US had sought permission to intervene to oppose UEFA’s applications or secure a delay in their determination. Vargas concluded that they had no “direct, substantial and legally protectable interest” in the subject matter of the application. The evidence-gathering effort involves proceedings in several jurisdictions: some target FIFA entities in Florida, while others concern participants in the project’s preparation, including Thrive Capital and JPMorgan, in New York. FIFA had challenged UEFA’s pursuit of documents for Swiss criminal proceedings that did not yet exist. Following the ruling, it stressed that the court had not addressed the merits of UEFA’s applications.
What FIFA Forward Enterprise proposed
The dispute stems from the proposal officially presented on 28 July to bring FIFA competitions’ commercial rights and operations into a new company open to private investors. The plan envisaged raising approximately $4.2 billion through a minority stake in FFE, valuing the company at around $20 billion. The latter figure was therefore not the amount FIFA expected to receive. The governing body maintained that it would retain control and that the transaction would increase funding for its 211 member associations: from $8 million per association in the 2023–2026 cycle to $20 million in 2027–2030, with access to a further $20 million through an additional programme. These were the projected terms of a proposal, rather than funds already distributed.
Opposition from UEFA and other confederations led Infantino to withdraw the project on 31 July, just three days after its presentation. However, its withdrawal did not resolve questions about how it had been developed, how investors were selected or what process supported the valuation. UEFA called for an independent external review and questioned whether FIFA could adequately scrutinise its own decisions. In October, FIFA’s official statement following a Council meeting recorded that Infantino had apologised for mistakes relating to the proposal.
The implications for Infantino
The US proceedings seek documents and testimony for a potential Swiss criminal complaint alleging criminal mismanagement. UEFA has used a legal mechanism allowing evidence to be requested in the United States for foreign proceedings, including certain criminal investigations before formal charges. Requesting documents, obtaining authorisation to secure them and subsequently using them before the relevant authorities are separate stages. The dispute now centres on access to information that could clarify how FFE was developed and, where appropriate, support the action UEFA is considering.
For Infantino, the immediate effect is continued institutional pressure and scrutiny of his leadership. In August, European football representatives mandated UEFA to explore political, institutional and legal avenues to introduce reforms and limits on presidential authority. They also announced that they would work to offer an alternative if he sought another term. A separate initiative followed on 5 October, when the Norwegian Football Federation asked FIFA’s Governance, Audit and Compliance Committee to examine FFE and other matters, and referred to a separate complaint to the Ethics Committee concerning individual conduct.
National teams and the next steps
The conflict also acquired a sporting dimension when UEFA threatened to withdraw European teams from FIFA competitions if the project proceeded. On 27 August, it provisionally suspended that measure after receiving written assurances that FFE had been permanently abandoned and would not return under another structure or name. However, it maintained its demand for an independent external review, with access to documents, communications and decision-making records relating to the venture.
The next step is to establish whether the courts will grant the evidence requests and on what terms, taking account of objections and applicable legal protections. If UEFA obtains the documents, it will have to decide how to use them in the action it is considering in Switzerland, where the authorities would assess any complaint. Meanwhile, disagreement continues over how to finance football development: FIFA argued that private investment would accelerate its member associations’ projects; UEFA questioned why the transaction was necessary and proposed exploring the responsible use of some of the governing body’s reserves. The requested documents could help explain why the first option was chosen and what oversight accompanied that decision.
Last related articles
