# UEFA vs FIFA: Why Infantino's World Cup Rights Plan Is Now in a US Court
European football's governing body has taken its escalating dispute with FIFA president Gianni Infantino into a United States courtroom. UEFA asked a federal judge in Manhattan to reject an attempt by two FIFA subsidiaries to join a proceeding through which UEFA is seeking evidence for a possible criminal complaint in Switzerland.
The legal language is technical, but the underlying argument is important for football fans. It concerns who controls the commercial future of FIFA's biggest competitions, how permanently valuable rights should be sold, and what checks exist when the sport's most powerful executive proposes a major deal.
What did UEFA ask the US court to do?
According to a Reuters report published on September 11, UEFA told the court that FIFA (Americas) Inc. and FWC2026 US Inc. should not be allowed to intervene in its evidence-gathering application. The two American entities are connected to FIFA and the 2026 World Cup, but UEFA argued that they are not direct targets of the potential Swiss case and have not received the proposed subpoenas.
UEFA is using a US law commonly known as Section 1782. It allows a party to ask an American court for documents or testimony that may be used in a proceeding outside the United States. UEFA wants information from investment firm Thrive Capital Management and its founder Joshua Kushner about the proposed FIFA Forward Enterprise transaction.
The judge has not ruled on UEFA's discovery request or on the subsidiaries' request to participate. That distinction matters: an application to obtain evidence is not a finding that anyone broke the law.
What was FIFA Forward Enterprise?
The proposed transaction would have brought private investment into a business holding commercial and operational rights linked to the World Cup and other FIFA events. Reuters reported that the plan involved selling a permanent stake in those rights.
Infantino abandoned the proposal on August 1 after strong criticism from football organisations and other opponents. A permanent sale is different from a limited sponsorship, broadcast licence or financing arrangement. World Cup rights can generate revenue across successive tournaments, so critics questioned how the asset would be valued, how investors would profit and how much control football bodies might surrender over time.
That explains why the dispute did not disappear when the proposal was withdrawn. UEFA is trying to understand how the plan was developed and whether the process behind it could support a criminal complaint under Swiss law.
Has Infantino been charged?
No. Reuters reported that UEFA is considering a complaint alleging possible criminal mismanagement by Infantino and potentially other FIFA officials, but no charge has been filed. Infantino has denied wrongdoing.
FIFA has described UEFA's legal activity as a smear campaign and a fishing expedition. Those are FIFA's allegations in a contested dispute, not conclusions reached by a court. Any responsible reading of the case must keep the difference between an accusation, an evidence request and a criminal charge clear.
UEFA's immediate position is procedural. It says the American subsidiaries are effectively trying to speak for FIFA and Infantino even though neither has sought to join the case. It also argues that Thrive and Kushner can challenge any subpoena through their own lawyers if one is eventually authorised.
Why are American companies involved?
The 2026 men's World Cup was staged across the United States, Canada and Mexico, and FIFA established entities to handle work connected to the tournament. The evidence UEFA seeks is in the United States because Thrive Capital and its founder are based there.
UEFA says the subsidiaries' concerns about confidential information belong to FIFA, if anyone, and that allowing intervention now would add another round of legal arguments before the court has even decided whether UEFA may request the records. The subsidiaries, by contrast, want an opportunity to protect their interests before sensitive information is pursued.
The court's decision may therefore turn first on standing and procedure rather than the merits of UEFA's broader allegations.
What could happen next?
The Manhattan court can deny UEFA's application, grant it and permit subpoenas, or allow further argument over the scope of the requested evidence. Even if UEFA obtains documents and testimony, it would still need to decide whether to submit a complaint in Switzerland. Swiss prosecutors would then independently determine whether the information justifies an investigation.
The case could also produce a negotiated narrowing of the records sought. Discovery disputes often move through questions about relevance, confidentiality and burden before any material is handed over.
For now, football supporters should not expect an immediate ruling on Infantino's position. The live issue is whether UEFA can collect evidence, not whether it has proved a criminal case.
Why this matters beyond the courtroom
FIFA's competitions are among the most valuable properties in global sport. A deal that changes the ownership or long-term economics of their commercial rights could affect distributions to national associations, tournament planning and FIFA's independence from outside capital.
The dispute also reveals the widening institutional split between FIFA and UEFA. Differences over calendars, club competitions, governance and revenue have long existed, but a US discovery fight tied to a possible Swiss complaint raises the conflict to a new level.
Fans do not need to choose a side before the evidence is tested. The key questions are whether the proposed transaction was properly reviewed, whether decision-makers protected FIFA's long-term interests and whether football's governance system offers enough transparency for deals of this scale.
Whatever the Manhattan judge decides, the abandoned rights plan will continue to shape debate about who owns the value created by the World Cup—and who has the authority to trade it.
Source: Reuters, September 11, 2026.
