FIFA ripped UEFA’s legal attacks against the global governing body in court, calling the legal process a “smear campaign” with a “fundamental defect.”
UEFA escalated its conflict with FIFA last week by initiating four legal cases in federal court in three different states seeking information about FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE), the failed plan to sell stakes in the World Cup to outside investors. UEFA did not sue FIFA, but began a larger power play. The European confederation wants to subpoena those involved with FFE to get information it can then bring to Swiss authorities in hopes of eliciting criminal charges against FIFA president Gianni Infantino and possibly other FIFA officials.
In the new filings, FIFA pushes back on UEFA’s master plan to bring charges against Infantino, saying UEFA shouldn’t be allowed to initiate discovery “with such a speculative connection to any legal proceeding.”
UEFA’s case in Florida targets FIFA’s U.S. operations and 2026 World Cup business, the two in New York focus on proposed lead FFE investor Thrive Capital and its founder Josh Kushner as well as adviser J.P. Morgan, and the one in Colorado seeks information from FFE adviser Greg Maffei and his company, BANN Ventures.
On Friday, FIFA filed in Florida a motion to oppose UEFA’s legal attack, which the court granted on Monday. Then on Tuesday, FIFA filed motions to intervene in both New York cases and the one in Colorado, essentially asking for a seat at the table in UEFA’s attempts to target Thrive and BANN.
“While these applications are styled as legal pleadings with captions and docket numbers, they are little more than press releases in further support of UEFA’s smear campaign against FIFA and its leadership,” FIFA’s filings say. “That is clear from UEFA’s decision to alert the media before filing these applications, from the countless paragraphs of the application supported only by references to press reports (many of which quote UEFA), and from the fact that UEFA’s application suffers from a fundamental defect: UEFA seeks discovery in aid of a foreign criminal proceeding that does not exist and that UEFA admittedly lacks the authority to initiate.”
Representatives for FIFA and Thrive declined to comment. UEFA, BANN, and J.P. Morgan did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
On Monday, Kushner told Axios that he and Thrive “stand behind the motivations of FFE,” but “failed to appreciate the political dynamics of global football, and the lengths some would go to.”
“Had we known what this would devolve into, we would not have gotten involved,” Kushner said.
What FIFA’s Filings Say
In the Florida filing, FIFA accuses UEFA of attacking it instead of participating in the “democratic process” of evaluating FFE, pushing a “publicity campaign.” It also questions why UEFA went through U.S. courts to get information and “bypassed” Swiss ones.
FIFA pushes back on the section of the Swiss criminal code that UEFA wants to use to bring down Infantino. While UEFA says it wants to bring claims under Article 158 of the code for “criminal mismanagement,” FIFA says the conditions to trigger that argument are “not met” because UEFA never suffered a financial loss from the FFE proposal.
“If there is any urgency here, it is not legal; it is UEFA’s desire to continue the media campaign it has waged since announcing its boycott of FIFA competitions,” the Florida filing says.
The Southern District of Florida granted FIFA’s motion to oppose the filing, and FIFA has until Sept. 28 to submit.
In the three cases in New York and Colorado, FIFA made attempts to enter into those proceedings targeting Kushner, Maffei, their businesses, and J.P. Morgan. Kushner, the venture capitalist brother of Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, is the new owner of the Lakers. Maffei is the former CEO of Liberty Media, the parent company of Formula One. J.P. Morgan helped FIFA draft FFE, and according to the Financial Times was “instrumental” in that process.
FIFA says it wants a voice in the other states’ legal fights because it has a “direct interest in whether and under what conditions” UEFA’s cases move forward. FIFA says it is “best positioned” to explain why UEFA’s argument “fails” to meet the proper legal requirements. FIFA says it also wants to avoid “inconsistent treatment” of the same legal matters “without an opportunity for FIFA U.S. to be heard.”
FIFA says it has a “direct, substantial, and legally protectable interest” in the New York and Colorado cases, and worries that the court might be privy to “sensitive business information without FIFA U.S. having an opportunity to protect and present FIFA’s interests.”
Why UEFA Took FIFA to Court
UEFA and FIFA have been sparring for years, and tensions reached a new level this summer.
Already critical of Infantino’s relationship with Trump, Europe erupted over FIFA’s reversal of U.S. striker Folarin Balogun’s red card, and Trump’s admission that he called Infantino about the matter. UEFA president Aleksander Ceferin skipped the World Cup final in protest.
A week later, reports emerged that FIFA planned to create a $20 billion commercial entity with $4.2 billion from outside investors. UEFA’s member countries said it would boycott all FIFA tournaments as long as the controversial proposal remained alive. Even after the plan collapsed, UEFA kept up its boycott until last week, and Ceferin and other confederation leaders put out a scathing letter against Infantino’s leadership.
“It is not the conduct of a custodian of the game, but of one who believes the game is answerable to him,” the letter said.
Last week, UEFA launched its legal attack, making filings against FIFA, Thrive, and BANN on Aug. 27, and J.P. Morgan the next day. UEFA called out the “secretive structuring, valuation, financing, and marketing” of FFE, and said it wants to learn how FIFA came up with the “absurdly low” valuation of $20 billion.
While it said the parties targeted in the U.S. were not expected to be part of potential Swiss proceedings, UEFA called FFE a “vehicle for Infantino and that small circle to acquire a permanent stake in and otherwise profit from FIFA’s most valuable assets to the detriment of FIFA, its members and other parties within the football family.”
