A separate application in Manhattan targets Thrive Capital Management, the investment company founded by Joshua Kushner. Thrive was intended to serve as the anchor investor in the proposed deal, making its internal records potentially useful to anyone trying to establish how the valuation, financing and negotiations were handled.
UEFA says Swiss lawyers have confirmed that it has standing to submit a complaint under Article 158 of the Swiss Criminal Code. That provision covers criminal mismanagement. Whether prosecutors would accept the argument, open an investigation or bring charges remains entirely unresolved.
No substantive response from FIFA or Infantino to the specific legal allegations had been reported after the applications emerged.
Why did FIFA Forward Enterprise cause such a revolt?
Infantino publicly unveiled FIFA Forward Enterprise, known as FFE, on July 28, 2026, shortly after the World Cup. The new subsidiary would have controlled commercial rights connected to FIFA’s leading tournaments and allowed private investors to buy a permanent financial interest.
According to the Associated Press, Thrive Capital and Kushner proposed paying $4.2 billion for a 20% stake. That placed the enterprise value at roughly $20 billion.
UEFA argues that the price was far too low and had not been tested through an open auction or an independent valuation. Its filing calls the proposed terms “a fraudulently off-market price promoted by Infantino for his own benefit.”
The governing body also alleges that Infantino and a small group had developed the proposal in secret for more than a year. It says the FIFA Council, the six continental confederations and FIFA’s 211 national associations were not consulted before the announcement.
Internal approval allegedly came only days earlier at a hastily arranged meeting. UEFA claims some FIFA managers and employees had never heard of the plan and were given only hours to approve an unprecedented transaction. Corporate governance rarely improves when the briefing arrives just before the signature page.
What does UEFA accuse Infantino of doing?
UEFA’s central allegation is that FFE was designed to benefit Infantino, selected insiders and private investors at the expense of FIFA and its members.
“In truth, it was a vehicle for Infantino and that small circle to acquire a permanent stake in and otherwise profit from FIFA’s most valuable assets,” the application states.
The filing says FIFA’s 211 associations, including UEFA’s 55 members, could have suffered financial and institutional harm. It argues that the secretive structure and marketing of the proposal damaged FIFA’s reputation, governance authority and commercial relationships even though the deal was eventually abandoned.
Infantino had promised each member association up to $40 million through combined Forward and Fast Forward funding if the investment proposal proceeded. Critics viewed that offer as part of an effort to secure support for the plan.
UEFA also places the episode in a broader context, citing what it calls FIFA’s “enduring history of corruption.” Its filing argues that meaningful accountability at world football’s governing body has usually arrived through political pressure, public scrutiny or criminal law enforcement rather than internal controls. FIFA will presumably not be adding that passage to its promotional material.
How did football turn against the proposal?
UEFA led the opposition and said it had lost confidence in Infantino. Its members voted to boycott World Cups unless the FFE proposal was withdrawn, while UEFA, the Asian Football Confederation and the Confederation of North, Central America and Caribbean Association Football accused him in an open letter of breaking trust “through deception.”
The football associations of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland also withdrew their support. The Nordic associations demanded binding guarantees against private ownership of FIFA competitions and called for an independent investigation into the organisation’s governance.
Resistance was not universal. The South American Football Confederation and the Confederation of African Football continued to support Infantino, while several national associations broke with their continental bodies to back him. On August 24, Infantino highlighted support from Caribbean federations and complained that some “do not need or want others to grow.”
The internal consequences were also visible. Former FIFA chief operating officer Kevin Lamour described the FFE process as a “lie by omission” that exposed failures in trust, transparency and governance. FIFA dismissed him on August 17 after his criticism, according to Le Monde. Adviser Carlos Cordeiro also resigned amid the fallout.
El País reported that Infantino acknowledged the initiative had been mishandled, contrasting with his public insistence that FIFA had followed the correct processes.
What happens to Infantino and the abandoned deal now?
FIFA scrapped the investment proposal in August following the widespread backlash. That ended the immediate threat of private ownership in the commercial arm, but not the dispute over how the plan was created, approved and promoted.
The U.S. applications could reveal correspondence, valuation work, presentations and testimony from FIFA’s American entities and Thrive Capital. Those records may determine whether UEFA proceeds with a formal Swiss complaint and whether it names other FIFA officials or advisers.
For now, the legal position is narrow but serious:
- UEFA is preparing for possible Swiss criminal proceedings.
- It is seeking evidence from FIFA companies in Florida and Thrive Capital in New York.
- Swiss prosecutors have not announced an investigation.
- No court has found Infantino or any other official guilty of wrongdoing.
The controversy also arrives before FIFA’s presidential election in March 2027. Infantino is seeking another mandate. Although it would be his fourth election victory, FIFA treats it as his third and final full term because his partial 2016 to 2019 mandate does not count toward its term limit.
That election gives the evidence dispute an additional political edge. UEFA is not merely challenging a discarded business proposal. It is questioning how FIFA makes major decisions, what happens to officials who object and whether its president should remain in office. The deal is dead. The paperwork, less conveniently, is not.
