UEFA threatened FIFA and investors with legal action over failed $20 billion plan
European football's governing body has sent FIFA, its president Gianni Infantino, and several individuals and institutions connected with the FIFA Forward Enterprise project formal warnings about possible court proceedings, arbitration, or reports to regulatory authorities. Although FIFA withdrew the controversial project, UEFA is demanding the preservation of all documentation and answers about how the plan was prepared.
The conflict between UEFA and FIFA over the failed plan to spin off the world football body's key commercial operations has escalated from a political and governance dispute into a potential legal matter. According to reports published by the Financial Times and The Telegraph on August 3, 2026, UEFA sent formal legal warnings to FIFA and individuals involved in the FIFA Forward Enterprise project, including American investor Joshua Kushner. The European confederation is reportedly seriously considering initiating proceedings before courts, arbitration bodies, or competent regulators. At the center of the dispute is a proposal under which private investors would acquire a minority stake in a new company valued at approximately 20 billion US dollars, which would manage the commercial rights and operational delivery of FIFA competitions. FIFA withdrew the project following strong opposition from several parts of world football, but UEFA believes that the withdrawal alone does not resolve questions of transparency, accountability, and the process through which the proposal was developed.
According to available reports, the formal warning does not mean that a lawsuit has already been filed or that anyone's legal liability has been established. It does, however, show that UEFA wants to preserve the possibility of taking action at a later stage and ensure that relevant evidence is not lost. FIFA has been instructed to preserve documents, files, emails, messages, minutes, presentations, and other materials connected with FIFA Forward Enterprise. Gianni Infantino was asked to confirm within five working days that he had received the request, understood his obligations, and appointed a person who would supervise the preservation of the materials. According to media reports, UEFA also requested information on whether any relevant documentation had already been deleted, destroyed, or otherwise become unavailable.
Warning sent to FIFA, investors, and advisers
According to The Telegraph's report, which refers to the contents of the letter, the warning was not limited solely to FIFA and its president. The recipients reportedly included Joshua Kushner, investor Greg Maffei, the bank JPMorgan, and the consultancy OpenEconomics. Kushner's fund Thrive Eternal had been identified in earlier reports as the expected lead investor in the new company, while JPMorgan and OpenEconomics were linked to the search for potential investors and the development of the financial structure. The document also reportedly named FIFA secretary general Mattias Grafström, chief of global football development Arsène Wenger, and chief operating officer Kevin Lamour as individuals who might possess or control relevant information. None of these allegations in itself means that any of the named individuals committed an unlawful act, but it demonstrates how broadly UEFA intends to define the obligation to preserve evidence.
Of particular importance is the demand to suspend any routine deletion or alteration of materials that would otherwise be carried out under internal data retention policies. According to the reported contents of the warning, UEFA stated that any subsequent destruction, concealment, alteration, or loss of materials could be treated as destruction of evidence and lead to additional legal consequences. Such wording is common when one party anticipates a possible dispute and wants to prevent later claims that key records no longer exist. It has not yet been publicly disclosed before which specific court, arbitration body, or regulator any proceedings might be conducted. It is also not known on which specific legal grounds such proceedings would be based, meaning that at this stage the matter concerns preserving the possibility of further action rather than a completed lawsuit.
What FIFA Forward Enterprise was intended to be
On July 28, 2026, FIFA officially presented the concept of FIFA Forward Enterprise as a new subsidiary that would consolidate the commercial rights and operational delivery of its tournaments. According to FIFA's statement, the new structure was intended to include revenues and operations connected with broadcasting rights, sponsorships, ticket sales, licensing, hospitality packages, and future commercial projects. The world football body claimed that the subsidiary would remain permanently under its ownership and control, while outside investors would be allowed to purchase minority, non-controlling stakes. The company's initial value was estimated at 20 billion dollars, and the sale of shares was intended to raise up to 4.2 billion dollars. Media reports mentioned the sale of up to 20 percent of the ownership to private capital.
FIFA presented the plan as a way to increase revenues and accelerate investment in football development across all 211 member associations. Gianni Infantino claimed that the project would provide more pitches, stronger national teams, more opportunities for young players, and additional investment in women's football. According to FIFA's official materials, basic funding through the FIFA Forward program was set to increase from eight million to 20 million dollars per member association during the 2027-2030 cycle. Each member association would reportedly also be able to access an additional 20 million dollars through a special program, bringing the potential total to 40 million dollars. FIFA emphasized that the net benefit of the new structure would be reinvested in football and that the proposal could not take effect without the support of a majority of member associations and the approval of the FIFA Council.
The difference between FIFA's description and the perception of other football bodies became the central point of the conflict. FIFA argued that it was not selling the World Cup or control over rules and competitions, but rather a minority economic interest in a commercial subsidiary. UEFA and other confederations responded that a private ownership stake, even without formal control, would create a permanent obligation toward investors expecting a return. Critics warned that such pressure could affect the calendar, the number of competitions, ticket prices, the way media rights are sold, and priorities in the distribution of revenues. FIFA disputed those claims and stated that football rules and sporting decisions would remain under the organization's exclusive governance.
Opposition over the lack of consultations and short deadlines
The proposal triggered a strong reaction from the outset because UEFA, Concacaf, and the Asian Football Confederation stated that they had not been properly consulted before the public announcement. On July 29, Concacaf said that it had learned about the project from media reports and a subsequent statement, expressing concern over the absence of the prescribed process. The AFC announced on the same day that the proposal had not previously been considered through the usual governance channels. UEFA additionally criticized the deadlines and the offer of one-off payments to national associations, assessing that such an approach did not represent an equal and open decision-making process. FIFA responded that media reporting had disrupted the planned consultations and that each of the 211 member associations would have an opportunity to consider the proposal and vote.
Tensions culminated on July 30, when UEFA and all 55 of its member associations unanimously rejected the project. In an official statement, UEFA said that European national teams would not participate in FIFA competitions for as long as the proposal remained in force, unless it was fully withdrawn and FIFA provided binding guarantees that governance and competitions would not be opened to private ownership. Such a threat represented an exceptionally serious risk to the viability of future World Cups because European national teams account for a large share of the tournaments' sporting and commercial appeal. Concacaf and the AFC also rejected or openly criticized the project, although they chose different institutional measures. The professional footballers' union FIFPRO called for a transparent, structured, and inclusive process in which players and other legitimate stakeholders would have a genuine role.
Opposition was simultaneously growing within FIFA. The Associated Press reported that Infantino's senior adviser Carlos Cordeiro had resigned, while chief operating officer Kevin Lamour publicly stated that some employees had not been fully informed about how the project had been prepared. Those statements further intensified questions about who had developed the proposal, when key FIFA bodies received the complete materials, and whether the usual oversight mechanisms had been bypassed. Before withdrawing the project, FIFA itself claimed that nothing had been finally decided and that consultations were intended to last seven weeks. Critics, however, believed that the project was considerably more developed than would be expected of an initial idea, particularly because the valuation, target capital amount, and potential investors had already been defined.
FIFA withdrew the plan, but the dispute is not over
On July 31, Gianni Infantino announced that the proposal would not be pursued. In an official statement, he said that FIFA had listened to different views and concluded that the project had caused divisions that were no longer in the interests of the objective for which it had been proposed. FIFA nevertheless maintained that the project's purpose had been to provide stronger funding for member associations, especially in countries and regions where football requires greater development support. The withdrawal removed the immediate threat of a boycott, but it did not stop demands for accountability to be established. UEFA subsequently stated that it was now necessary to examine how the proposal could have reached such an advanced stage in the first place.
On August 1, Concacaf welcomed the withdrawal but simultaneously stated that the events could not simply be set aside. The confederation demanded that questions of governance, accountability, and leadership be addressed through the FIFA Council and the procedures provided for in the statutes. AFC president Shaikh Salman bin Ebrahim Al Khalifa also welcomed the abandonment of the project and emphasized that future projects affecting global football must be discussed in a timely, transparent, and meaningful manner with the confederations, the FIFA Council, national associations, and other stakeholders. The debate therefore shifted from whether the FFE would be implemented to what kind of oversight system was needed to prevent a similar proposal from being developed outside the usual institutions. UEFA's demand for the preservation of documentation should be viewed precisely in that context.
Key questions for the investigation and FIFA's future governance
Potential legal or regulatory proceedings would probably focus on the process through which the project was prepared, the powers of the individuals who developed it, communications with investors and advisers, and compliance with FIFA's statutes and internal rules. One question will be at what stage the plan moved from a general idea about improved commercialization to a specific structure with a valuation, a capital-raising target, and identified investors. Another question is whether the FIFA Council, the confederations, and the member associations received sufficient information before the project was presented to the public. A third concerns possible conflicts of interest, fees, future roles, and financial benefits for the individuals involved, about which complete official information is not yet available. Until the documentation has been reviewed, it is not possible to conclude in advance that any law or statute was breached.
The dispute also raises the broader question of the boundary between commercial growth and the public role of sports associations. FIFA is a Swiss non-profit association whose membership consists of national football associations, but it manages events and rights that generate billions of dollars in revenue. Supporters of private capital argue that specialized investors can bring new expertise, technology, and faster market development. Opponents warn that an ownership interest held by private funds could change the organization's priorities and create pressure on decisions that should serve the sport, players, and supporters. The collapse of FIFA Forward Enterprise demonstrated that such a major change cannot be implemented through financial arguments alone, without broad political legitimacy within world football.
For UEFA, the withdrawal of the plan is clearly not the end of the case but the beginning of a more detailed examination of its background. The legal warnings clearly inform the recipients that UEFA expects the materials to be carefully preserved and send a message that decisions, communications, and the roles of individuals will subsequently be analyzed. As of August 3, 2026, FIFA had not publicly issued a detailed response to the reports of possible proceedings, and it is currently unclear whether UEFA will actually file a lawsuit, initiate arbitration, or approach regulators. The outcome will depend on the contents of the documentation, the applicable rules, and the European confederation's decision following its legal analysis. What is already certain is that the short-lived project has left a deep institutional crisis and opened a debate about who has the right to decide the commercial future of football's biggest competitions.
Sources:
- Financial Times – report on UEFA's legal warning to FIFA and individuals involved in FIFA Forward Enterprise (link)
- FIFA – official presentation of the FIFA Forward Enterprise model, valuation estimates, and planned development funding (link)
- FIFA – clarifications on ownership, control, and the planned consultation process concerning the FFE (link)
- FIFA – Gianni Infantino's statement on the withdrawal of the proposal (link)
- UEFA – joint statement by UEFA and its 55 national associations on rejecting the plan and not participating in FIFA competitions while the proposal remained active (link)
- Concacaf – initial statement on the absence of consultations and the prescribed process in the preparation of the FFE (link)
- Concacaf – statement on the withdrawal of the proposal and the demand that governance and accountability issues be resolved through FIFA's institutions (link)
- Asian Football Confederation – position on the absence of consultations and the need for transparent decision-making (link)
- Associated Press / CBS News – report on international opposition, internal reactions within FIFA, and the political consequences of the plan's withdrawal (link)
- African Football – overview of allegations from UEFA's letter concerning the preservation of documentation, recipients of the warning, and the deadline for confirmation of compliance (link)