UEFA's Criminal Complaint Against Infantino Is the Biggest FIFA Takedown Since the 2015 Arrests

The Lawsuit No One Saw Coming

On August 27, UEFA walked into a federal court in southern Florida and asked for permission to dig through FIFA’s files. That may sound like bureaucratic housekeeping. It is not.

The request is part of a coordinated legal offensive that could result in criminal charges against Gianni Infantino — the sitting president of world football — under Swiss law. UEFA is preparing to file a criminal complaint in Swiss courts alleging financial mismanagement related to Infantino’s abandoned plan to sell a stake in FIFA’s commercial operations to private investors, including Joshua Kushner’s Thrive Capital, for $4.2 billion.

If this succeeds, it would mark the most significant challenge to FIFA’s leadership since the handcuffs arrived at Zurich’s Baur au Lac hotel in 2015.

The Deal That Broke the Camel’s Back

To understand why UEFA is escalating from threats to federal subpoenas, you need to understand the deal Infantino tried to make.

FIFA wanted to create a subsidiary called FIFA Forward Enterprise. The plan was to transfer commercial rights linked to the men’s World Cup, the women’s World Cup, and the Club World Cup into that entity — then sell a 20% stake to outside investors. Thrive Capital and an unnamed second fund would have been anchor investors, paying FIFA $4.2 billion for their share.

$4.2 billion for a fifth of a company that owns the world’s most valuable sports property sounds like a bargain — until you do the arithmetic UEFA did. At that price, the implied enterprise value of FIFA’s commercial arm was roughly $20 billion. That figure was neither the product of a competitive auction nor independently verified by any valuer. UEFA called it an “absurdly low” figure “promoted by Infantino for his own benefit.”

The implication is direct and explosive: Infantino allegedly steered FIFA’s crown jewels to connected buyers at a fraction of their worth, with himself and a small circle eventually acquiring permanent stakes in the very assets they were supposed to be protecting.

Why Florida and New York

The jurisdictional gymnastics here are telling.

FIFA is headquartered in Zurich, and any criminal case will be filed there. But FIFA maintains offices in Coral Gables, Florida — and Joshua Kushner’s Thrive Capital is a New York-based investment fund. UEFA filed its discovery requests in both the southern Florida district court and a Manhattan court, seeking authorization to obtain testimony and documents from these entities “in aid of a foreign proceeding.”

This is standard procedure under U.S. law for international litigation, but it reveals something important: UEFA’s lawyers are building a case that spans continents because Infantino’s plan did. The connection to Florida isn’t incidental — it’s where FIFA operates much of its commercial business outside Switzerland, and where some of the financial records UEFA needs are likely to be found.

The Kushner Factor

Joshua Kushner is not your average sports investor. He is the younger brother of Jared Kushner, a senior adviser to President Donald Trump who sat on a White House panel during the 2026 World Cup. The political dimensions of this deal were always going to be tangled.

CBS News reported earlier this month that Kushner and former Disney CEO Bob Iger had agreed to purchase the Los Angeles Lakers for $12.5 billion — a deal that underscores how deeply embedded Kushner is in American sports and entertainment. His involvement with FIFA’s commercial ambitions suggests a man comfortable operating at the intersection of sports, media, and politics.

Infantino’s relationship with Trump drew scrutiny throughout the summer’s tournament, hosted jointly by the United States, Mexico, and Canada. That scrutiny intensifies now that the financial arrangements behind those relations are under legal examination.

What Article 158 Actually Means

UEFA’s legal team specifically cited Article 158 of the Swiss Criminal Code — the provision governing criminal mismanagement. This is not a civil dispute over contract interpretation. It is a accusation that Infantino, in his role as FIFA president, breached his fiduciary duties in a way that constitutes a crime under Swiss law.

Swiss criminal mismanagement cases are serious but not automatic conviction mechanisms. The threshold requires proving that someone in a position of trust deliberately acted against the interests of the organization they serve, causing material harm. If UEFA’s discovery requests yield evidence of preferential pricing, insider deals, or concealed conflicts of interest, the Swiss prosecutors will have a case. If they find routine governance failures without criminal intent, the matter may stay in the civil domain.

That distinction matters enormously for Infantino. A civil finding of bad governance could end his career. A criminal conviction would carry prison time.

The Boycott Threat That Changed Everything

Infantino was forced to scrap the plan on August 1 after his senior adviser — who also held a White House position — resigned and the Asian Football Confederation joined UEFA and the Confédération Nord, Centrale et Caraïbe de Football (CONCACAF) in opposing it. The coalition was unprecedented: three of FIFA’s six confederations openly rebelling against the president’s flagship initiative.

UEFA had been first to react, issuing a statement saying it had lost confidence in Infantino’s leadership and threatening to boycott any FIFA-sponsored competitions. A UEFA boycott would have been catastrophic — it would have meant no European teams at the next World Cup, regardless of whether it was hosted in Europe and Africa or anywhere else. Spain, the current World Cup holder, is a UEFA member.

On August 3, UEFA warned FIFA against destroying or hiding any “relevant materials” related to the plan. Three weeks later, that warning has become a subpoena request. The tone has shifted from diplomatic threat to legal operation.

What Happens Next

The immediate timeline is uncertain but the trajectory is clear. UEFA’s discovery requests need to be reviewed and potentially granted by both the Florida and New York courts. That process alone could take months. Once documents are secured, UEFA’s Swiss lawyers will determine whether they have enough for a criminal complaint. Swiss prosecutors would then decide whether to open a formal investigation.

Even before that point, the damage to Infantino’s position is mounting. Every headline about a criminal complaint erodes his authority within FIFA’s member associations. Several presidents have already publicly questioned the deal. None have defended it.

The broader question is what happens to the World Cup if Infantino falls. The 2030 tournament is scheduled to be co-hosted across Europe and Africa. The 2026 edition just concluded. Whatever governance reforms follow this crisis will shape football’s commercial architecture for decades — particularly around how FIFA monetizes its most valuable asset. The Forward Enterprise plan was meant to accelerate revenue growth by opening FIFA’s commercial rights to private capital. Its failure and the subsequent legal battle have done the opposite: they’ve injected uncertainty into a system that runs on predictability.

Who Wins, Who Loses

UEFA wins if this process continues. The organization has reasserted itself as the primary check on FIFA’s executive power — a role it abandoned after the 2015 crackdown gave way to a period of uneasy cooperation. Infantino loses regardless of the legal outcome. He is politically isolated, financially exposed, and operationally weakened.

Kushner and Thrive Capital lose credibility by association. FIFA loses legitimacy. The game loses — at least in the short term — to the kind of public spectacle it has spent decades trying to professionalize away.

What remains unclear is whether Swiss authorities will treat this as a high-profile governance case or let it become a diplomatic minefield. The World Cup is too big, and the money is too large, for any legal system to process in a vacuum. But the filing has been made. The documents are being sought. The clock is ticking.

For the first time since 2015, the people who run world football are arguing about it in open court.