MONTE CARLO, Monaco — On Wednesday evening, 24 hours ahead of the UEFA Champions League draw, European football’s leading lights gathered at Le Meridien Beach Plaza, the only hotel in Monaco with a private beach, for the annual kickoff barbecue. (Purists will object that it’s more of an outdoor grill buffet, but Monaco plays by its own rules.)
It was, in every way, the proverbial calm before the storm. By lunchtime on Thursday, UEFA would unleash two unexpected (but connected) legal assaults in two different jurisdictions directed squarely at FIFA president Gianni Infantino. And nobody was dropping hints. Instead, UEFA officials, who had previously pledged to boycott FIFA competitions as a result of Infantino’s private equity proposal, were keen to explain they had dropped their boycott less than two weeks before the first tournament that would have been affected, the Under-20 Women’s World Cup in Poland.
Multiple sources told ESPN that Europe’s governing body didn’t want to deny young women the opportunity to play (or postpone) it, and that they had achieved their objective of stopping Infantino’s ill-fated FIFA Forward Enterprise. It felt the collective dissent had led to the plan being scrapped and, according to UEFA, had received “legal guarantees” from FIFA that such a proposal — selling all or part of FIFA’s revenue streams to private investors — would never be considered again.
When challenged on what “legal guarantees” meant — How would they be enforced? Would they be written into FIFA’s bylaws? — several UEFA officials simply said the equivalent of ‘well, if worse comes to worse, we’ll pull out of the World Cup, making it worthless, and [Infantino] will have no choice but to drop any such plans.’
It’s true in theory, but also unsatisfying. Wasn’t the whole point of the UEFA boycott not just to get FIFA to drop the proposal but also ratchet up the pressure on Infantino to the point of forcing his resignation?
On a muggy, sticky Monaco late-summer night, you couldn’t help but suspect that there was something else at play; even though those in the know were giving away nothing. Twelve hours later, we found out just what it was.
On Thursday morning, UEFA filed court documents in the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Florida and prepared a claim in Switzerland, where FIFA and UEFA are both based. The former, a Section 1782 request, asks the court to compel a potential defendant to be subjected to a discovery process, releasing troves of evidence including phone records, emails and other documents. The latter, under Article 158 of the Swiss Criminal Code, alleges “criminal mismanagement” and carries a maximum custodial sentence of five years.
Talk about keeping your powder dry and your mouth shut.
While UEFA had floated the possibility of legal action — earlier this month, it asked FIFA to ensure that no documents were destroyed — few predicted this body blow just a few hours after the “legal guarantees” negotiation, which many had seen as a temporary truce, if not a reconciliation. Instead, Infantino’s opponents are as determined as ever, sources told ESPN, and they’re acting with the support of significant portions — as well as the leadership — of the Asian Confederation and Concacaf, which represents North America, Central America and the Caribbean.
The core of the criminal complaint in Switzerland rests on the way Infantino attempted to push through his proposal to spin off FIFA’s commercial operation and sell 20% of it to a group of private equity investors, led by Joshua Kushner’s Thrive Capital. It is expected to allege that Infantino violated fiduciary duties by negotiating in secret with Thrive Capital, by not consulting with FIFA Council members and, most of all, by agreeing to a $20 billion valuation of FIFA.
The complaint suggests this severely undervalues FIFA — which reported revenues of $15 billion for the 2023-2026 cycle, culminating in this summer’s World Cup — and that the fact that it wasn’t put to tender, meaning no other bids were solicited, is hugely problematic.
The separate filing in Florida, where FIFA moved some of its commercial and legal operations ahead of the World Cup, is designed to compel “interested persons” to release evidence in a foreign criminal proceeding, just as they would need to do if it were a U.S. case.
It’s possible, of course, that the Swiss court will find no wrongdoing or take ages to come to a conclusion, by which stage (like the FIFA presidential election next March) such matters could be moot. But several ESPN sources, and one legal source who did not wish to be identified because they might become involved in the case at a later stage, explained why this isn’t necessarily relevant.
The Section 1782 request in Florida applies to “criminal investigations conducted before formal accusations” as well. In other words, even if the Swiss case is never brought in front of a judge, the Florida court can order the release for discovery purposes of FIFA documents and communications.
That alone would be a huge win for Infantino’s opponents. At that point, the FIFA Council could credibly call for an independent review on the basis that if there was a criminal case to answer, the organization itself — and by extension, the Council members — might be at risk of prosecution.
3:18
Burley: Barcelona are the team to beat in LaLiga
UEFA officials said they feel they are on solid ground in terms of the Florida court granting their Section 1782 request, sources told ESPN, but they do acknowledge it’s not a slam dunk. More than one told ESPN there was a risk of political pressure being brought to bear given Infantino’s links to the U.S. President Donald Trump, but even that scenario would again force Infantino to be on the defensive. It would mean more time spent defending himself and summoning lawyers to fight off challenges in Florida and Switzerland, which means less time he’s able to spend on the campaign trial in trying to rally member associations to support him in the March election.
UEFA issued a statement Thursday urging Infantino not to seek another mandate and reiterating that if he decides to run again, the governing body will work with other confederations to find a “a credible alternative — one committed to integrity, accountability, development and genuine institutional change.” Candidates have until Nov. 18 to submit paperwork.
It’s not going to be news to Infantino, who is well aware that he is under attack on multiple fronts. The legal proceedings against him might not stop him, but they will — at a minimum — slow him down, certainly enough to derail his globe-trotting campaign and his chances for re-election.
It’s pretty evident that UEFA is serious and it still has the finger on the “nuclear button” — withdrawing from senior FIFA competitions. The next one is FIFA’s Intercontinental Cup in December, but that concerns only one club, Paris Saint Germain (and the fact that the club is owned by Qatar Sports Investments, a state-backed private investment fund that has formally endorsed Infantino, makes it a firm maybe).
The competition after that one is big: the 2027 Women’s World Cup. Committing to a boycott ahead of the FIFA elections if Infantino is chosen in March remains the biggest weapon in the arsenal of his opponents: you’d imagine UEFA would be joined by Concacaf and AFC, or at least some of the bigger nations in those confederations that have called for his removal.
Multiple UEFA officials told ESPN that while it would be a last-ditch measure, they are prepared to go through with it if all other options are exhausted.
