FIFA Accuses UEFA of ‘Smear Campaign’ as Gianni Infantino Legal Row Escalates

The power struggle at the top of world football has intensified after FIFA accused UEFA of conducting a “smear campaign” against the organisation and its president, Gianni Infantino, amid a legal battle over a scrapped proposal to sell a stake in FIFA’s World Cup-related commercial business to private investors.

The dispute between FIFA and UEFA has moved beyond football politics and into the courts.

At the centre of the row is the abandoned FIFA Forward Enterprise, or FFE, proposal, which would have involved private investment in a new FIFA commercial subsidiary linked to some of world football’s most valuable rights.

UEFA has raised serious concerns about how the plan was developed and has sought access to documents and testimony in the United States as it considers possible legal action in Switzerland.

FIFA has now responded with its own US court filings, rejecting UEFA’s arguments and accusing European football’s governing body of pursuing a politically and economically motivated campaign against FIFA and Infantino.

The increasingly hostile exchange represents one of the most serious public confrontations between the two governing bodies in recent years.

What Was the FIFA Forward Enterprise Plan?

The FFE proposal involved creating a new FIFA commercial entity and bringing in outside private investment.

Venture capitalist Joshua Kushner and his company Thrive Eternal had been in discussions over a potential $4.2 billion (£3.1 billion) investment in exchange for a 20% stake in the proposed subsidiary.

The idea would effectively have placed a portion of FIFA’s future commercial business into a structure partly backed by private capital.

FIFA argued that the proposal could dramatically increase the amount of money distributed to national football associations.

Under the plan, FIFA said funding available to each member association for the 2027-2030 cycle could have risen from approximately £5.9 million to £14.7 million.

But the proposal generated immediate controversy after becoming public and was eventually abandoned.

UEFA Raises Serious Allegations Against Infantino

UEFA subsequently filed papers in the United States seeking access to evidence and documents relating to the proposal.

Its legal arguments included serious allegations concerning Infantino’s handling of the process.

UEFA accused the FIFA president of what it described as “criminal mismanagement” and alleged that the investment structure involved an improperly low valuation that could have benefited him.

These claims remain allegations and have not been established by a court.

UEFA’s lawyers have also argued that FIFA’s World Cup-related commercial assets may have been deliberately undervalued.

According to UEFA’s filing, the World Cup business was valued at around £15 billion, despite the absence of an open competitive auction or an independent valuation process.

UEFA argues that this raises questions about whether FIFA could have obtained substantially more favourable terms.

FIFA Hits Back in US Court

FIFA has strongly rejected UEFA’s legal approach.

In court documents, the world governing body argues that UEFA’s case suffers from what it calls a “fundamental defect” and contains serious legal deficiencies.

FIFA’s position is that UEFA is asking a US court to authorise extensive discovery in support of a foreign criminal proceeding that does not yet exist.

It also argues that UEFA itself does not have the legal authority to initiate the type of Swiss criminal process it refers to.

FIFA is therefore seeking to have UEFA’s access to documents either delayed or rejected.

FIFA Says the FFE Plan Was Only a Proposal

A central part of FIFA’s defence is that the FFE project never progressed beyond the proposal stage.

According to FIFA, the project could only have moved forward if it received sufficient support from member associations and the necessary approval from the FIFA Council.

The organisation says UEFA chose not to participate in that process.

Instead, FIFA claims UEFA launched a public campaign against the project and against Infantino.

That is the basis of FIFA’s accusation that UEFA engaged in a “weeks-long smear campaign” against the organisation and its leadership.

FIFA Claims UEFA Has an Economic Motive

FIFA’s response goes further than simply disputing the legal claims.

It suggests UEFA has a financial incentive to oppose initiatives that strengthen football outside Europe.

FIFA argues that increasing investment in smaller footballing nations could reduce European football’s dominance.

According to FIFA’s filing, stronger funding for developing football associations could allow more countries to improve domestic leagues, develop players and retain talent.

FIFA argues that this could ultimately create more international competition for UEFA’s own tournaments and reduce Europe’s existing market power.

In effect, FIFA is presenting the dispute as being about more than Infantino or one investment proposal.

It is framing the row as a battle over the future distribution of money and influence across global football.

UEFA Has Led Opposition to Infantino

UEFA has emerged as one of the strongest institutional opponents of Infantino during the controversy.

The FIFA president is facing calls to step down from multiple confederations, and UEFA has been central to the resistance against his leadership.

Although UEFA declined to respond publicly to FIFA’s latest accusations, people familiar with its position reportedly believe FIFA should simply disclose the requested documents if it has nothing to conceal.

That argument puts transparency at the heart of the dispute.

FIFA says the legal request is overly broad and procedurally flawed.

UEFA’s position is that disclosure would help establish what actually happened.

Why Joshua Kushner Is Important to the Case

One of the most important figures in the proposed transaction is Joshua Kushner.

Kushner is a venture capitalist and the brother of Jared Kushner, who is married to the daughter of US President Donald Trump.

UEFA has asked a New York court to authorise access to testimony and documents from Kushner and his investment company.

Thrive Eternal had been positioned as the lead investor in the proposed FFE structure.

The potential investment was worth billions of dollars and would have involved acquiring 20% of the new FIFA commercial subsidiary.

UEFA’s lawyers argue that Kushner’s involvement could help establish how the proposal developed, how FIFA valued the business and how long discussions had been taking place before the plan became public.

Kushner Later Expressed Regret

Kushner has since expressed regret over becoming involved in the project.

While he continued to defend the underlying motivation behind FFE, he said his team had underestimated the political dynamics surrounding global football.

He also suggested they had not anticipated the scale of the backlash that would follow.

His comments underline just how contentious the project became once details emerged.

What may initially have been presented as a financial strategy to increase FIFA’s investment capacity quickly turned into a major governance controversy.

UEFA Also Wants Documents From Greg Maffei

UEFA is seeking information from another prominent American financier, Greg Maffei, who acted as a key adviser connected to the proposed transaction.

Neither Maffei nor Kushner is currently expected to be a defendant in any potential legal proceedings.

However, UEFA believes their records could provide crucial evidence about the origins and development of the FFE concept.

Its lawyers claim Kushner and Maffei first discussed the idea in July 2025.

They also allege that Infantino had already been discussing the broader concept with Kushner for almost a year before a formal term sheet was signed.

Those claims are likely to form an important part of any future examination of whether FIFA’s internal governance procedures were properly followed.

Did Infantino Consult FIFA’s Leadership?

One of UEFA’s central concerns is whether Infantino adequately consulted FIFA’s governing structures before pursuing the proposed transaction.

UEFA argues that senior FIFA figures were not properly involved in the development of the plan.

FIFA disputes that characterisation.

It insists that the proposal would ultimately have required formal approvals before implementation.

That distinction could become crucial.

If the project was simply exploratory, FIFA can argue that no formal governance breach occurred because no final transaction was ever approved.

UEFA, however, appears interested in what happened before that stage — including negotiations, valuations and preliminary commitments.

The £15bn Valuation Is a Major Flashpoint

Perhaps the most financially significant issue is UEFA’s claim that FIFA’s World Cup-related business was valued too cheaply.

UEFA says a valuation of around £15 billion was not tested through a competitive process.

According to its lawyers, there was no open auction and no independent external valuation.

That matters because selling 20% of an asset at an artificially low valuation could theoretically deprive FIFA and its member associations of billions in potential future value.

UEFA therefore wants more information about how the figure was calculated and who was involved.

FIFA rejects the suggestion that the plan represented misconduct.

Why Private Investment in FIFA Would Be So Controversial

FIFA’s commercial rights are among the most valuable assets in world sport.

The men’s World Cup generates enormous revenue from broadcasting, sponsorship, ticketing and licensing.

Bringing private investors into a FIFA-linked commercial structure would therefore represent a major change.

Supporters of such a model could argue that private capital would provide immediate funds for football development.

Critics would ask what investors receive in return.

Private investors generally expect significant financial returns.

That raises questions about whether future World Cup revenues should be partially redirected to outside investors rather than retained entirely within football.

It also raises issues around transparency, control and long-term commercial influence.

FIFA Says Smaller Nations Would Have Benefited

FIFA’s strongest defence of the proposal is based on development funding.

The governing body argues that FFE could have provided significantly more money to smaller national football associations.

For federations with limited broadcasting or sponsorship income, FIFA development funding can be extremely important.

Additional resources could potentially be used to improve:

• Youth academies
• Training facilities
• Women’s football
• Coaching
• Domestic leagues
• Grassroots programmes
• National team preparation

FIFA argues that stronger funding could make global football more competitive.

Could More FIFA Funding Threaten European Football?

FIFA’s claim about UEFA’s economic motivation adds another layer to the dispute.

European clubs currently dominate global football financially.

The best players from Africa, South America and other regions frequently move to European leagues.

FIFA argues that greater investment outside Europe could allow domestic leagues elsewhere to retain more talent.

It also suggests that players eligible for multiple national teams may be more likely to represent their countries of heritage if football structures in those nations become stronger.

Whether FFE would actually have produced such a transformation is uncertain.

But FIFA is using that argument to portray UEFA’s resistance as protection of Europe’s economic interests.

This Is Also a Battle for Power

Behind the legal documents lies a much bigger political struggle.

FIFA controls world football.

UEFA controls the richest regional football market.

The two organisations cooperate on many issues but also compete for influence, commercial power and control over the international calendar.

Any major redistribution of wealth or authority can alter that balance.

That helps explain why a disagreement over an investment proposal has escalated into allegations of criminal mismanagement on one side and accusations of a smear campaign on the other.

Infantino Faces Growing Pressure

Infantino has led FIFA since 2016.

During his presidency, FIFA has expanded several competitions and pursued new revenue opportunities.

But the FFE controversy has created one of the most serious challenges to his leadership.

Calls for him to step down from several football confederations demonstrate the depth of institutional opposition.

The legal dispute with UEFA could further increase pressure if courts allow wider disclosure of internal documents.

Equally, if FIFA successfully blocks UEFA’s requests, the governing body may argue that its critics pursued legally weak accusations for political purposes.

What Happens Next?

The immediate battle is taking place in the United States.

A court will have to consider whether UEFA should be allowed access to the documents and testimony it is seeking.

FIFA wants that process delayed or rejected.

UEFA is seeking material from FIFA as well as figures connected with the proposed investment, including Kushner and Maffei.

If the requested evidence is released, it could reveal more about:

• How the FFE plan originated
• Who negotiated it
• How the valuation was calculated
• What Infantino knew and approved
• Whether FIFA’s governing bodies were consulted
• What investors expected to receive in return

Those details could determine whether the controversy remains primarily a political dispute or develops into something more serious legally.

The Legal Language Matters

Because the allegations are severe, it is important to distinguish accusation from proof.

UEFA has raised claims of criminal mismanagement and questioned whether the proposed deal was properly valued.

FIFA strongly denies wrongdoing and argues UEFA’s legal case is fundamentally defective.

No court finding mentioned in the current dispute has established that Infantino committed fraud or criminal misconduct.

The legal process will therefore be crucial in determining what evidence supports the competing claims.

A Crisis That Could Reshape FIFA-UEFA Relations

Whatever happens in court, the relationship between FIFA and UEFA appears increasingly strained.

Public accusations of a smear campaign are difficult to reverse.

So are allegations of criminal wrongdoing.

The dispute could influence future negotiations over competitions, international calendars, commercial rights and governance reforms.

It may also force national associations to decide which side of the institutional divide they support.

That could make this controversy one of the defining political battles in modern football administration.

The Bottom Line

The fallout from FIFA’s abandoned FFE investment project has escalated into an extraordinary confrontation between world football’s two most powerful governing bodies.

UEFA is seeking documents and testimony as it considers potential legal action over the proposed sale of a 20% stake in a new FIFA commercial subsidiary.

It has raised serious allegations about how the project was developed and valued.

FIFA has responded aggressively, arguing that UEFA’s legal case is flawed and accusing the European governing body of conducting a politically and economically motivated smear campaign against FIFA and Gianni Infantino.

At stake is far more than one abandoned investment deal.

The dispute touches on billions of pounds in World Cup value, the distribution of football’s global wealth, FIFA’s internal governance and the balance of power between FIFA and UEFA.

The FFE proposal may have been abandoned.

The battle it created is only getting bigger.

FIFA has accused UEFA of a smear campaign against Gianni Infantino as the two governing bodies clash over the abandoned FFE World Cup investment plan and potential legal action.

Source: BBC

Also read: FIFA President: Key Questions Facing Gianni Infantino as FIFA Executives Meet Amid Governance Crisis