UEFA has petitioned a US federal court to prevent FIFA subsidiaries from intervening in a discovery dispute involving the organization's commercial rights strategy.
The European football governing body, UEFA, has formally requested that a United States federal court deny efforts e centers on UEFA's attempts to secure documents and testimony from Thrive Capital Management, an investment firm led a potential criminal complaint in Switzerland regarding the leadership of FIFA President Gianni Infantino.
In a recent filing in Manhattan, UEFA argued that FIFA (Americas) Inc and FWC2026 US Inc lack the standing to participate in the proceedings. According to the European organization, these entities are attempting to act as proxies for FIFA and Infantino, even though neither the parent organization nor the president has officially moved to join the litigation. UEFA claims that this involvement is an improper attempt to shield information from judicial scrutiny.
The core of the conflict stems from the controversial "FIFA Forward Enterprise" transaction, a plan that sought to sell a permanent stake in commercial and operational rights tied to the World Cup and other premier events to private equity interests. Following significant opposition from global football stakeholders, Infantino formally withdrew the proposal on August 1. However, the move did not end the scrutiny surrounding the decision-making process behind the abandoned deal.
UEFA is utilizing a specific provision of US law, Section 1782, which allows parties involved in foreign proceedings to obtain evidence from individuals or entities located within the United States. ernal discussions and financial planning that characterized the proposed commercial rights venture. The organization contends that this evidence is vital for determining whether criminal mismanagement occurred.
The subsidiaries involved in the current dispute have characterized UEFA's legal maneuvers as a "smear campaign" rather than a legitimate search for evidence. They have described the discovery applications as a broad, unfocused "fishing expedition" designed to undermine the current leadership of FIFA. These entities argue that the requested information is confidential and that the discovery process is being weaponized to cause reputational damage to the governing body.
In response to these claims, UEFA has emphasized that the subsidiaries have no direct legal interest in the New York proceedings. Because the entities are not targets of the potential Swiss criminal investigation and were not the original recipients of the subpoenas, UEFA argues their intervention is both unnecessary and procedurally irregular. They maintain that any legitimate concerns regarding the subpoenas should be addressed subsidiaries.
The legal battle has highlighted a significant divide between the two major governing bodies of football. UEFA’s insistence that the court reject the intervention of the subsidiaries is rooted in a desire to prevent unnecessary delays. Typically, requests under Section 1782 are processed initially without opposition, with any challenges to the scope or validity of the evidence requests handled through subsequent motions to quash. UEFA believes that allowing the subsidiaries to intervene now would fundamentally disrupt this standard judicial pathway.
As the case progresses, the court must weigh the necessity of the discovery against the privacy and operational concerns raised or how international sports organizations utilize US courts to settle internal governance disputes. With Infantino preparing for a fourth term in the upcoming FIFA presidential elections in March, the pressure surrounding these legal inquiries remains high.
The involvement of high-profile figures, such as Joshua Kushner, has added a layer of complexity to the narrative. While Thrive Capital Management has yet to issue a formal response to the subpoenas, the court's upcoming decision on the intervention motion remains the primary hurdle for both parties. As the global football community watches, the resolution of this discovery fight will likely influence the transparency standards applied to future commercial ventures involving FIFA's global assets.