The International Federation of Association Football ـFIFAـ has asked a federal court in the Southern District of Florida, United States, to reject a request for documents and testimony submitted by the Union of European Football Associations -UEFA- concerning the abandoned FIFA Forward Enterprise -FFE- project. The European confederation is seeking information for a potential criminal complaint in Switzerland concerning FIFA President Gianni Infantino and the development of the proposed transaction. According to ‘Reuters’ on September 29, FIFA rejects the allegations and describes the initiative as a “misinformation campaign” intended to influence its forthcoming election. Its response escalates a confrontation that has outlasted the project’s withdrawal, placing the dispute over access to FIFA’s information before an external judicial authority.
The US proceedings began with UEFA’s application on August 27 and concern FIFA Americas and FWC2026 US, two FIFA entities based in Florida. The application relies on Section 1782 of federal law, which allows parties to seek documents and testimony for use in proceedings before foreign judicial authorities. That mechanism can extend to investigations before formal charges, although the court must determine whether the requirements are met and whether to grant, limit or reject the request. At this stage, the dispute concerns access to evidence. The US court is not determining Infantino’s criminal liability, and UEFA’s intention to file a complaint in Switzerland does not mean that criminal proceedings against him over these matters are already under way.
The documents UEFA is seeking
FFE proposed transferring commercial rights associated with the men’s and women’s World Cups and the Club World Cup into a new subsidiary with private investment. FIFA presented the transaction as a way to generate additional resources for football development. Its withdrawal, following opposition from several confederations and member associations, halted the project but did not resolve disagreements over how it had been developed. UEFA maintains that questions remain about how the proposal was drawn up, who participated in negotiations, what information FIFA officials received and how the financial terms were justified.
In its court application, UEFA alleges that the project was developed without adequate consultation with FIFA’s governing bodies and questions both the valuation of the assets and the process followed. The confederation wants documents and testimony that would allow it to examine those decisions and support a potential complaint. These are one party’s allegations, not findings established by a court. The disagreement also has an institutional dimension: UEFA is part of FIFA’s structure and is represented on its Council, yet it has turned to an external judicial mechanism to obtain information about an initiative led by the presidency. The immediate question is what material it may obtain and under what conditions it may use it.
FIFA rejects the allegations
FIFA denies that Infantino sought personal financial benefit and argues that UEFA has made false or misleading claims. Its defence distinguishes between developing a proposal and approving a transaction: it maintains that FFE would have required approval through the relevant institutional structures before proceeding. It also disputes the European confederation’s financial interpretation. According to the response reported by ‘Reuters’, the approximately $20 billion cited by UEFA represented the equity value attributable to shareholders, while the total enterprise value exceeded $30 billion. FIFA relies on that distinction to reject UEFA’s comparison; the disagreement over valuation remains part of the opposing parties’ arguments, without a court ruling on the issue.
FIFA also makes an election-related allegation: it argues that UEFA’s action is intended to influence the forthcoming presidential election, in which Infantino is seeking to remain in office. Its filing links the document request to that timetable and asks the court to reject what it characterises as an attempt at interference. That political motive is FIFA’s interpretation, not a judicial finding about UEFA’s intentions. The European confederation declined to comment on the latest accusations. The exchange adds another disagreement to the FFE dispute: whether the legal action represents a demand for accountability, as UEFA argues, or a campaign against FIFA’s leadership, as FIFA maintains.
A governance review alongside legal proceedings
The confrontation coincides with Infantino’s proposal for an independent external assessment of FIFA’s governance. In a letter sent on September 21 to the Council and all 211 member associations, he proposed reviewing the decision-making framework for major strategic initiatives and opening consultations on potential improvements. The issues include the respective roles of the presidency, the Bureau of the Council, the Council and Congress, as well as participation and transparency. On FFE, Infantino maintained that it remained “a proposal, not a decision” and was subject to the necessary approvals. His position therefore combines two arguments: he accepts that procedures could be strengthened while rejecting UEFA’s allegations of wrongdoing in the development of the transaction.
The proposed review and the court application serve different purposes, but both concern access to information and oversight of decision-making. The former would examine institutional processes and recommend improvements; the latter seeks documentation about a specific transaction for potential use before the Swiss authorities. Their coexistence raises a question of scope: what can a FIFA-commissioned assessment establish about a dispute already being pursued outside its governing bodies, and will it examine the process behind FFE as well as the rules for future initiatives? The terms of reference, the available documentation and the handling of its findings will be necessary elements in assessing that review. The Council is scheduled to meet on October 15 to discuss the governance proposals, while the US proceedings must determine the request for access to evidence.
Last related articles
