FIFA Accuses UEFA of Misinformation Campaign as Presidential Election Looms

FIFA has launched a sharp counterattack against UEFA, accusing European football's governing body of running a "misinformation campaign" designed to sway the upcoming FIFA presidential election. In a court filing submitted Tuesday in the Southern District of Florida, world football's governing body argued that UEFA's legal maneuvers are less about uncovering wrongdoing and more about damaging Gianni Infantino politically as he prepares to seek a fourth term in office.

The dispute centers on UEFA's request for a US federal court to authorize testimony and document discovery that would support a planned criminal complaint in Switzerland against Infantino. That complaint relates to a now-abandoned proposal to transfer the commercial rights of the World Cup into a subsidiary entity known as FIFA Forward Enterprise, or FFE. UEFA wants access to American-held evidence as it builds its case, but FIFA is urging the court to reject that request outright.

At the heart of FIFA's objection is the claim that UEFA's legal brief is riddled with inaccuracies. According to FIFA's filing, UEFA made "numerous false or misleading statements about FIFA and Infantino," including the suggestion that the FIFA president stood to personally profit from the FFE arrangement. FIFA described that allegation as entirely baseless, insisting the proposal was always subject to approval by both FIFA's member associations and its ruling Council.

FIFA further explained that FFE would have operated under the oversight of both bodies within its governance structure. The organization stated flatly that any implication Infantino broke the law or violated ethical principles is "categorically without merit." The filing represents FIFA's most forceful public rebuttal yet in a saga that has exposed deep divisions within the global football community.

UEFA's original allegations paint a very different picture. The European confederation claims Infantino developed the FFE proposal in secret alongside a small circle of advisers and investors, effectively sidestepping FIFA's normal governance channels. According to UEFA, the plan was crafted without consulting the FIFA Council, regional confederations, or member associations — a breach it says undermines the legitimacy of the entire process.

Financial specifics have become a key battleground in the dispute. UEFA's legal filing states that investors were prepared to pay $4.2 billion for a stake in FFE, a transaction that would have valued the business at roughly $20 billion. UEFA argues that figure dramatically undervalued FIFA's commercial rights and contends the deal was never subjected to an open auction or assessed by an independent valuer.

FIFA's response challenges UEFA's financial reasoning directly, accusing the European body of conflating two distinct concepts — equity value and enterprise value — whether intentionally or through unfamiliarity with corporate finance. FIFA clarified that the $20 billion figure represented FFE's "initial equity valuation," meaning what would remain for shareholders after debts were settled. The total enterprise value of the business, by contrast, exceeded $30 billion, according to materials FIFA says were distributed to its member associations.

That distinction matters enormously, FIFA argues, because the enterprise value was more than double the equity value — far higher than what UEFA claims would have constituted a fair price. By making this argument, FIFA is attempting to neutralize one of UEFA's central contentions: that the FFE plan shortchanged the global game and deprived member associations of rightful revenue.

The FFE project was ultimately shelved in July after opposition from multiple confederations. UEFA was joined by the Confederation of North, Central America and Caribbean Association Football, known as CONCACAF, and the Asian Football Confederation in objecting to the plan, citing the lack of proper consultation. The abandoned proposal has since fueled broader demands for reform of FIFA's governance and decision-making structures.

In a bid to address those concerns, Infantino wrote to all 211 FIFA member associations last week proposing an independent review of how the governing body makes decisions. The move appears designed to project openness and defuse criticism ahead of the presidential vote, though it remains unclear whether it will satisfy his detractors within the European game.

Timing is central to FIFA's legal argument. The organization points out that UEFA filed its application under the US statute known as Section 1782 — along with three other similar requests — shortly before FIFA's election. Infantino, a Swiss administrator, is up for re-election in March, and FIFA contends the legal filings are calculated to spread misinformation about him at the most politically sensitive moment possible. The court, FIFA argues, should reject any effort to influence the presidential election through such means.

The broader context is a relationship between FIFA and UEFA that has deteriorated markedly in recent months. UEFA president Aleksander Ceferin has publicly criticized Infantino, and in late September said trust between the two organizations remained broken following the investment row. What began as a disagreement over a commercial rights proposal has evolved into a full-blown governance crisis, with legal proceedings now unfolding on two continents.

Adding another layer to the story, Infantino said earlier this week that he is willing to discuss the disbursement of millions of dollars to FIFA's member associations. The precise amounts to be distributed to individual nations are expected to be on the agenda when the FIFA Council meets on October 15. Such distributions are a powerful tool in FIFA politics, and the timing of the announcement — just months before the election — is unlikely to go unnoticed by member associations whose votes Infantino will need.

For now, the Florida court must decide whether UEFA's discovery request proceeds or whether FIFA's objections prevail. Should the court side with UEFA, the European body would gain access to US-based testimony and documents that could strengthen its Swiss criminal complaint. A ruling in FIFA's favor, meanwhile, would hand Infantino a significant procedural victory and blunt one of the most potent legal threats he currently faces.

Beyond the courtroom, the episode raises larger questions about transparency and accountability at the top of world football. Critics argue that major commercial decisions affecting the sport's most valuable asset — the World Cup — should never be devised behind closed doors, while FIFA's defenders counter that the FFE plan was abandoned precisely because the governance process worked. With an election approaching and trust between the game's two most powerful bodies at a low ebb, the outcome of this dispute may shape not only Infantino's political future but also the balance of power in global football for years to come.