Fifa hits back at Uefa 'smear campaign' over scrapped World Cup privatization deal

The World Cup was supposed to be sold off in pieces. In July, Fifa president Gianni Infantino unveiled a plan called Fifa Forward Enterprise—a scheme to hand over a fifth of the tournament's commercial rights to private investors, with venture capitalist Joshua Kushner and his firm Thrive Eternal leading a $4.2 billion investment. The arrangement would have funneled money back to national football associations, nearly tripling their funding from £5.9 million to £14.7 million per cycle. Then the plan collapsed within days, buried under international outcry. Now, three months later, the two governing bodies that run world football are locked in a legal war over what happened, and who bears responsibility.

Uefa, European football's governing body, struck first. Last week it filed legal papers in a US court accusing Infantino of criminal mismanagement and fraud. The organization alleged he had deliberately undervalued the World Cup at roughly £15 billion—a figure, Uefa's lawyers argued, that was neither the result of open bidding nor reviewed by independent valuers. Uefa claimed Infantino had failed to consult Fifa's own leadership before pursuing the deal, and that the entire enterprise was designed to benefit him personally. The organization also demanded access to documents and testimony from Kushner, his company, and American financier Greg Maffei, who had advised on the transaction.

Fifa's response came swiftly and sharp. In court filings reviewed by the BBC, the world governing body accused Uefa of orchestrating a calculated smear campaign. Fifa argued that Uefa's legal challenge contained fundamental flaws—that it was seeking discovery for a criminal proceeding in Switzerland that did not yet exist, and that Uefa lacked the authority to initiate such proceedings in the first place. The organization insisted that Fifa Forward Enterprise had always been merely a proposal, one that would have required approval from a majority of member associations and the Fifa Council before moving forward. Rather than engage in that democratic process, Fifa wrote, Uefa had issued a press release and launched weeks of coordinated attacks on Infantino and his leadership.

Beneath the legal language lay a deeper accusation: that Uefa's real motive was economic self-interest. Fifa claimed that Uefa opposed the scheme not on principle but because it threatened European dominance. If smaller nations had the financial resources to develop their football programs, Fifa argued, global competition would intensify. Players from developing countries would stay home instead of emigrating to Europe's wealthier leagues. Uefa's market power would shrink. The organization was, in Fifa's telling, protecting its own commercial interests by sabotaging a plan designed to strengthen football in poorer parts of the world.

Kushner himself weighed in on Sunday, expressing regret over his involvement. He acknowledged that he and Thrive Eternal had failed to grasp the political complexities of international football governance. Had they understood the backlash that would follow, he said, they would not have participated. His statement offered no defense of the deal itself, only a recognition that the venture had become untenable the moment it became public.

Uefa declined to comment on Fifa's latest filings, but people close to the organization made clear their position: if Fifa had nothing to hide, it should release the documents and accelerate the legal process. The dispute reflects a broader fracture in world football's leadership. Infantino is facing calls to resign from three continental confederations, with Uefa leading the rebellion. The litigation now underway in US courts will determine what gets disclosed about how the World Cup was valued, who knew what and when, and whether the privatization scheme was genuinely democratic or something closer to what Uefa alleges. For now, both sides are dug in, trading accusations in legal filings while the football world watches.