bayu-aji
European football’s governing body has formally requested that a United States federal court block two American subsidiaries of FIFA from intervening in a sensitive legal dispute regarding evidence-gathering for a potential Swiss criminal investigation targeting FIFA President Gianni Infantino.
The legal filing, submitted late Thursday in the Manhattan federal court, centers on UEFA’s efforts to stop FIFA (Americas) Inc and FWC2026 US Inc from taking part in the ongoing discovery proceedings. UEFA contended that the two American corporate entities are improperly attempting to serve as stand-ins for FIFA’s central leadership and Infantino himself, neither of whom has formally moved to join the New York court action directly.
At the core of the dispute is UEFA’s petition under Section 1782, a United States statute that allows foreign litigants to obtain testimony and documentary evidence for use in proceedings abroad. Through this legal mechanism, the European governing body is attempting to compel document disclosures and depositions from New York-based private equity firm Thrive Capital Management and its founder, Joshua Kushner.
According to the court filings, UEFA maintains that Thrive Capital and Kushner may possess crucial information and communications concerning a controversial commercial venture previously championed by Infantino, known as the FIFA Forward Enterprise transaction.
Kushner, the founder of Thrive Capital, is the brother of Jared Kushner, who is the son-in-law of United States President Donald Trump. UEFA has identified the investment firm and its leader as potentially holding records relevant to how the global soccer body structured and marketed the abandoned investment project.
The contentious proposal, which Infantino officially withdrew on August 1 following intense backlash from various football stakeholders and critics, would have seen FIFA sell a permanent equity stake in commercial and operational rights associated with the flagship World Cup and other major international soccer tournaments to private outside investors.
UEFA has revealed that it is actively considering the submission of a formal criminal complaint within the Swiss legal system. The prospective Swiss case would allege criminal mismanagement against Infantino and potentially encompass other high-ranking FIFA officials connected to the conception and promotion of the World Cup commercial rights venture.
Despite the mounting legal maneuvering and UEFA’s warnings of legal action, Infantino and FIFA have not been charged with any criminal offenses. Infantino has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing in connection with the failed commercial rights initiative or his executive management of football's world governing body.
For its part, FIFA responded aggressively to the discovery petitions the prior week, publicly accusing UEFA of orchestrating a calculated smear campaign. The Zurich-based organization characterized UEFA’s legal actions in the United States as an illegitimate fishing expedition aimed primarily at inflicting reputational damage on FIFA and its executive leadership.
In its latest submission to the Manhattan federal court, UEFA argued that the American corporate offshoots lack any direct legal interest in the discovery action. UEFA emphasized that the subsidiaries are not the prospective targets of the contemplated criminal complaint in Switzerland, nor are they the intended recipients of the proposed subpoenas.
Furthermore, UEFA challenged the standing of the American entities regarding institutional confidentiality. The European federation asserted that any confidentiality interests or privileges cited by the two US entities would belong exclusively to their ultimate parent organization in Switzerland, rather than to local operational subsidiaries.
UEFA also pointed out that neither Thrive Capital nor Kushner requires third-party corporate intervention to safeguard their procedural rights. Both the investment firm and its principal maintain their own independent legal counsel, who would have the full legal capacity to contest or move to quash the subpoenas after they are officially served.
Procedurally, UEFA warned that permitting the subsidiaries to intervene at this preliminary stage would run contrary to the established framework governing Section 1782 discovery requests. Typically, such discovery applications are granted initially on an ex parte basis without adversarial opposition, leaving substantive objections to be resolved through subsequent motions to quash.
Allowing the subsidiaries to step into the litigation now would cause unwarranted delay, UEFA argued, by forcing the court to entertain an unnecessary round of merits briefing before UEFA can even begin the process of seeking the requested records.
As it stands, the Manhattan federal court has not yet handed down a ruling on either UEFA’s underlying Section 1782 application for discovery or the formal motion to intervene filed by FIFA’s American subsidiaries.
The transatlantic legal fight unfolds against an increasingly contentious administrative backdrop, as Infantino prepares to seek a fourth term at the helm of world football in the upcoming FIFA presidential elections scheduled for March.
Comments (0)