UEFA has urged a US court to reject a bid by two FIFA American subsidiaries to join its legal fight for evidence that could support a Swiss criminal case against FIFA President Gianni Infantino.
In a filing in Manhattan federal court on Thursday, UEFA said FIFA (Americas) Inc and FWC2026 US Inc were improperly trying to act as stand-ins for FIFA and Infantino.
Neither FIFA nor Infantino has sought to join the case.
UEFA is seeking documents and testimony from Thrive Capital Management and its founder Joshua Kushner under a US discovery law. It says they may have information about the proposed FIFA Forward Enterprise transaction.
Infantino withdrew the plan on August 1 after strong opposition from soccer bodies and other critics. The proposal would have sold private investors a permanent stake in commercial and operational rights linked to the World Cup and other FIFA events.
UEFA considers Swiss criminal complaint
UEFA is considering a criminal complaint in Switzerland against Infantino and potentially other FIFA officials. It could accuse them of criminal mismanagement.
FIFA and Infantino have not faced any charges over the plan.
FIFA accused UEFA last week of running a “smear campaign” and called its discovery applications a fishing expedition aimed at damaging FIFA and its leadership.
Infantino has denied wrongdoing.
UEFA said the two subsidiaries had no direct legal interest in the New York case. It said they were not targets of the possible Swiss proceedings and would not receive the proposed subpoenas.
The European body also rejected the subsidiaries’ concerns about confidentiality. UEFA said those concerns, if valid, belonged to FIFA, their Swiss parent company.
It added that Thrive and Kushner already have lawyers who can challenge any subpoenas after UEFA serves them.
Thrive did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Kushner, the founder of Thrive, is the brother of Jared Kushner, son-in-law of US President Donald Trump.
UEFA said allowing the subsidiaries to intervene would depart from the usual process for requests under Section 1782. Courts commonly grant such requests before targets challenge them through motions to quash.
The governing body also warned that the intervention could delay its bid for the records. It said another round of legal arguments would have to take place before it could seek the evidence.
Leave a Reply