UEFA Asks U.S. Court to Deny FIFA Subsidiaries' Bid in Infantino Evidence Battle

In a legal filing submitted in Manhattan, UEFA stated that FIFA (Americas) Inc and FWC2026 US Inc are improperly acting as stand-ins for FIFA and Infantino, neither of whom has formally sought to join the case. UEFA's discovery request under U.S. law targets documents and testimony from investment firm Thrive Capital Management and its founder Joshua Kushner regarding the proposed FIFA Forward Enterprise transaction.

Legal Battle Surrounding Abandoned World Cup Commercial Venture

The underlying dispute stems from a commercial plan withdrawn by Infantino on August 1 following widespread backlash from soccer governing bodies and critics. The proposed transaction envisaged selling a permanent equity stake in commercial and operational rights for the World Cup and other major FIFA tournaments to private global investors.

UEFA revealed it is considering filing a criminal complaint in Switzerland alleging criminal mismanagement against Infantino and potentially other FIFA executives. Infantino has denied any wrongdoing, and neither he nor FIFA has been charged with criminal offenses, with FIFA characterizing UEFA's legal actions as a deliberate smear campaign.

UEFA Questions Legal Standing of American Subsidiaries

In its response to the court, UEFA argued that the two U.S.-based FIFA subsidiaries lack direct legal interest in the Manhattan proceedings because they are not targets of the contemplated Swiss criminal investigation. Furthermore, the European governing body pointed out that the subsidiaries were not recipients of the proposed subpoenas seeking corporate records.

UEFA noted that any valid confidentiality concerns belong exclusively to the parent entity, FIFA, based in Switzerland. Additionally, UEFA emphasized that Thrive Capital Management and founder Joshua Kushner—brother of Jared Kushner, son-in-law of U.S. President Donald Trump—already maintain legal representation capable of challenging subpoenas through standard judicial channels.

Section 1782 Discovery Framework and Potential Delays

Addressing the procedural structure of the case, UEFA argued that allowing the subsidiaries to intervene prior to a court ruling strays from standard practice under Section 1782 discovery requests. Typically, such applications are evaluated initially without third-party opposition and tested later through official motions to quash.

UEFA cautioned that permitting early intervention by the American subsidiaries would generate unnecessary procedural delays by introducing additional briefing rounds before evidence gathering can proceed. Neither Thrive Capital Management nor FIFA immediately issued further public comments following the filing.

Court Awaits Rulings on Discovery Application and Motions

The Manhattan federal court has not yet issued a ruling regarding UEFA's initial application for discovery or the intervention motion submitted by the U.S. subsidiaries. The outcome will determine whether UEFA can proceed with subpoenaing corporate records in the United States.

As the legal proceedings continue, European soccer's governing body maintains its efforts to secure information for prospective Swiss court filings. The case highlights ongoing political and operational friction between top international football administrations.