UEFA Demands Documents from the U.S. and Intensifies Pressure on Infantino

The standoff between UEFA and Gianni Infantino has reached a new stage. After politically opposing FIFA's plan to open part of its commercial assets to private investors, the European governing body is now preparing a legal offensive. It is specifically seeking to obtain documents in the United States to prepare for a potential lawsuit in Switzerland against the FIFA president.

This new approach comes just weeks after the abandonment of the FIFA Forward Enterprise project, which had sparked strong opposition within European football and beyond. For UEFA, the withdrawal of the project is not enough to close the case. The organization now intends to seek clarifications on the conditions under which the operation was conceived and negotiated.

A Legal Procedure in Preparation

UEFA has approached the American courts to obtain documents and testimonies held by FIFA entities based in Florida. These elements could then be used in a potential procedure before Swiss courts.

The European organization is notably considering a possible complaint against Gianni Infantino and potentially other FIFA officials or advisors. The legal basis being contemplated would be that of "unfair management," an offense provided for under Swiss law.

However, it should be emphasized that no conviction has been pronounced, and any potential procedure will need to establish the reality of the alleged facts. The accusations made by UEFA currently represent its position in the conflict with FIFA's leadership.

The FIFA Forward Enterprise Project at the Heart of the Conflict

The proposed procedure originates from the FIFA Forward Enterprise project, presented by FIFA as a means to strengthen its commercial capabilities and increase funding dedicated to the development of football.

The scheme aimed to transfer certain commercial activities related to FIFA's major competitions to a new structure. Private investors would then be able to take a minority stake in this entity.

The operation was expected to mobilize several billion dollars. FIFA presented this prospect as an opportunity to generate additional resources for its member associations.

But the initiative quickly drew criticism. UEFA expressed concerns about the very principle of opening up the capital of a structure holding some of the most significant commercial assets in world football.

In the face of widespread opposition, the project was ultimately withdrawn.

Questions About Asset Valuation

Beyond the principle of opening up to private investors, UEFA also contests the valuation set for the future structure.

The European organization believes that the proposed amount did not necessarily reflect the actual value of the commercial rights involved. It seeks to understand how this estimate was established and what discussions preceded its public presentation.

This issue is particularly sensitive for FIFA, whose international competitions represent a major source of revenue. The commercial and broadcasting rights related to the World Cup are notably one of the main financial pillars of the organization.

For UEFA, determining the value of these assets must therefore meet high standards of transparency, competition, and governance.

The Role of Private Investors

The project also raised questions regarding the identity of certain potential investors.

Among those associated with the case was Joshua Kushner, founder of Thrive Capital and brother of Jared Kushner, a close associate of Donald Trump. This presence contributed to fueling debates surrounding the operation.

UEFA is now seeking to determine precisely how the negotiations were conducted, who participated, and under what conditions potential investors were approached.

These elements could play an important role in any potential judicial procedure in Switzerland.

UEFA Abandons Boycott but Continues Its Offensive

The legal battle comes as UEFA has simultaneously suspended its threat to boycott competitions organized by FIFA.

The European organization had considered particularly heavy measures to pressure Gianni Infantino. Several national federations had even mentioned the possibility of not participating in certain FIFA competitions if the commercial project were to be maintained.

The definitive withdrawal of the project ultimately helped avoid a direct confrontation on the pitch.

This de-escalation, however, does not mean the end of the conflict. UEFA believes that the governance issues raised by this affair remain unresolved and intends to continue exerting institutional and legal pressure on FIFA's leadership.

Infantino Remains a Candidate for Re-election

Despite the criticism, Gianni Infantino remains determined to continue his tenure at the head of FIFA. He aims to secure a new mandate in the presidential election scheduled for March 2027.

His continued presidency is one of the main points of tension with UEFA. The European organization is now seeking to strengthen its opposition while working towards the emergence of a credible alternative.

Aleksander Čeferin, president of UEFA, has ruled out running for the FIFA presidency. This decision leaves open the question of who might be a potential candidate capable of gathering enough federations to challenge Infantino's position.

A Crisis Beyond Just Financial Issues

The conflict between the two main governing bodies of world football is no longer limited to a financing issue.

Behind the FIFA Forward Enterprise project lies a much broader battle over the governance of international football, control of the revenues generated by major competitions, and the role of private investors in a system historically dominated by federations.

By approaching the American courts to prepare for a potential procedure in Switzerland, UEFA shows that it intends to maintain pressure even after the project's abandonment.

For Gianni Infantino, this new offensive comes at a strategic moment, as the presidential election of 2027 looms. For UEFA, it represents a new means to demand greater transparency and checks and balances at the top of FIFA.

The withdrawal of the project has thus helped avoid an immediate crisis on the pitch, but it has not resolved the institutional conflict. This conflict could now be played out in the courts.