FIFA Court Case: What the New York Ruling Means for UEFA and Infantino

The ruling does not yet order anyone to hand over documents. UEFA is asking the court, under a US statute that lets foreign litigants gather evidence in America, to authorise subpoenas on Thrive Capital and its founder Joshua Kushner, whose investment vehicle was lined up to lead the investor group. UEFA says the material is for a contemplated criminal complaint in Switzerland against FIFA president Gianni Infantino and possibly other officials. FIFA's lawyers responded, according to DW, that the court "has not addressed the merits" and that no documents have to be produced, so the application itself is the next decision to watch.

What the judge decided on 12 November

Judge Vargas decided a narrow procedural question: whether two US companies in the FIFA group could join UEFA's case before the court rules on it. They could not. In September, FIFA (Americas), Inc. and FWC2026 US, Inc. had asked the court to defer ruling on UEFA's application or to let them oppose it, arguing that UEFA wanted discovery for "purportedly contemplated (but non-existent)" Swiss criminal proceedings.

Intervention turns on whether the newcomer has a real legal stake in the dispute. In her eight-page ruling, reported by DW, she wrote that nothing in the record indicated that the US FIFA parties, "or even FIFA itself", would be parties to the contemplated criminal proceedings, and that they had not alleged facts suggesting they would be defendants. The case is aimed at Infantino, not at the American companies.

That tracks UEFA's September reply, which, according to Reuters, said the subsidiaries were neither targets of the Swiss case nor recipients of the subpoenas, and that Thrive and Kushner had their own lawyers to challenge any subpoenas once served.

What UEFA is asking for, and from whom

The New York case is one of four discovery applications UEFA filed in three US federal districts at the end of August. The application before Judge Vargas, filed on 27 August 2026 as case 1:26-mc-00431, asks for an order under 28 U.S.C. section 1782 authorising subpoenas for documents and deposition testimony from Thrive Capital Management, LLC, its related entities and Joshua Kushner, including testimony from a corporate representative of Thrive.

UEFA wants five categories of documents: how the proposal originated, including communications with Infantino and his adviser Greg Maffei; valuation work and models; the proposed investment terms; the identity of co-investors; and the timing of investor commitments against FIFA's approval process. The full list of the applications, as set out in a motion filed by FIFA's US subsidiaries in Colorado, is below.

Court	Case number	Filed	Who UEFA seeks evidence from
Southern District of New York	1:26-mc-00431-JAV	27 August 2026	Thrive Capital Management, Thrive Eternal and Joshua Kushner
Southern District of New York	1:26-mc-00436-AS	28 August 2026	J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, JPMorgan Chase Bank and two senior executives
Southern District of Florida	1:26-mc-25872-JEM	27 August 2026	FIFA's US subsidiaries
District of Colorado	1:26-mc-00158	27 August 2026	BANN Ventures and its founder Gregory Maffei

Only the first of these was decided on 12 November. Press reports describe the ruling as clearing the way for UEFA to pursue documents from both Thrive and JPMorgan, but the JPMorgan application sits on a separate docket, and the Press Association reported that a further court decision is needed before any documents are released.

The FIFA World Cup investor plan behind the case

The FIFA World Cup investor plan was a proposal to move FIFA's most valuable commercial rights into a new company and sell a minority stake to private investors. According to UEFA's application, Infantino announced the plan on 28 July 2026: the commercial rights to the men's and women's World Cups and the Club World Cup would sit in a new subsidiary, FIFA Forward Enterprise, with Thrive Eternal, a permanent capital vehicle controlled by Kushner, expected to lead the investor group. UEFA says the investors stood to acquire a permanent interest for $4.2 billion, implying an enterprise value of about $20 billion that was never tested by an auction or independent valuer.

The reaction was swift. UEFA's 55 member associations voted at an emergency meeting on 30 July not to take part in any FIFA competition while the plan remained alive, a position CONCACAF and the Asian Football Confederation also took, according to the application. FIFA's own court filing records that Infantino publicly confirmed on 31 July 2026 that the project would not proceed. DW has reported that FIFA's 211 member federations were each offered $20 million to approve it.

FIFA tells a different story. Its US subsidiaries say the plan was only a proposal, conditional on majority support from member associations and FIFA Council approval, and designed to increase funding for all 211 members. They call UEFA's filings part of a "smear campaign". Infantino has denied wrongdoing and has not been charged with any offence.

How section 1782 discovery works

Section 1782 lets a US federal court order a person who lives or is found in its district to give testimony or produce documents for use in a proceeding before a foreign or international tribunal. The statute expressly covers "criminal investigations conducted before formal accusation", and an application can be made by "any interested person", not only by a foreign court. No one can be forced to breach a legally applicable privilege.

The statutory test

Courts apply three statutory requirements, then discretionary factors. In Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices in 2004, the US Supreme Court held that the foreign proceeding must be "in reasonable contemplation" but need not be pending or imminent, and that a complainant can count as an interested person. In ZF Automotive v. Luxshare in 2022, it held that only a governmental or intergovernmental adjudicative body is a "foreign or international tribunal", which shuts private arbitration out of the statute.

Requirement or factor	UEFA's position	FIFA's position
Respondent resides or is found in the district	Thrive is based in New York and Kushner resides or is found there	Not the focus of FIFA's objections
For use in a foreign proceeding	A Swiss criminal complaint is in reasonable contemplation, and Swiss counsel has been retained	No Swiss proceeding exists and the request is a fishing expedition
Interested person	UEFA would be the complainant and could join as a private claimant	UEFA cannot itself start a criminal case
Circumventing foreign rules	Courts routinely grant section 1782 orders in aid of Swiss criminal cases	Football disputes belong in arbitration, which section 1782 cannot reach
Burden and confidentiality	Respondents can move to quash or narrow the subpoenas	FIFA material is confidential under its Code of Ethics

The discretionary Intel factors

Even when the statute is satisfied, a judge may refuse or trim an application. Intel points to four considerations: whether the evidence holder is a participant in the foreign case, the foreign tribunal's receptivity to US help, any attempt to circumvent foreign proof-gathering rules, and whether the request is unduly intrusive or burdensome. Applications are often granted ex parte and tested later through motions to quash.

Why European sports bodies use US courts for evidence

Section 1782 is attractive because it works before any foreign case exists. A US court can order documents and depositions from a New York investor while a complaint is only in contemplation, the applicant does not need a foreign court's request, and Intel confirms there is no requirement that the material would be discoverable in the foreign country. For a complainant hoping to persuade a prosecutor to act, arriving with evidence already in hand can make the difference. UEFA's application cites earlier New York and Florida decisions granting section 1782 orders in aid of Swiss criminal proceedings.

There are limits that matter to sports bodies. Many football disputes go to private arbitration, which ZF Automotive put outside the statute. That helps explain why the FIFA court case is framed around a Swiss criminal complaint, and why FIFA's subsidiaries accuse UEFA of working round the unavailability of US discovery in arbitration. Readers following sports disputes will recognise the pattern from CAS appeals, the Manchester City independent commission and the EU law challenges to FIFA's transfer rules, where the forum shapes what evidence each side can obtain. Our guides to arbitration versus litigation and the seat of an arbitration explain why that choice matters.

A similar battle over documents ran through Donald Trump's defamation claim against the BBC.

What UEFA's Swiss criminal complaint would involve

UEFA says it is contemplating a complaint for criminal mismanagement under Article 158 of the Swiss Criminal Code. As quoted in UEFA's application, the offence applies to a person entrusted with managing another's property who, in breach of duty, causes that person financial loss, and carries a custodial sentence of up to three years or a monetary penalty, rising to up to five years where the offender intends to secure an unlawful gain for themselves or another.

UEFA argues that Swiss courts have jurisdiction because FIFA is headquartered in Zurich and the plan was directed from there. It says criminal mismanagement is prosecuted ex officio, that anyone may report it, and that an injured party can join a Swiss case as a private claimant. FIFA's subsidiaries counter that no Swiss proceeding exists and that UEFA lacks authority to start one. Whether to investigate is for Swiss prosecutors, and nothing decided in New York says any offence was committed. Advisers in Swiss dispute resolution are the people who will assess whether the evidence, if obtained, meets the threshold for a complaint.

What happens next in the FIFA court case

The next step is a ruling on UEFA's application itself. If Judge Vargas grants it, UEFA can serve its subpoenas on Thrive and Kushner, who may then move to quash or narrow them on grounds such as burden, relevance or confidentiality. Only after that process would documents or deposition transcripts change hands, and the statute lets the order prescribe the procedure for producing them. FIFA's public response so far has stressed that the merits remain undecided.

The other applications run separately. In Florida, the court let FIFA's subsidiaries file an opposition, due by 28 September, and the Colorado and second New York cases have their own timetables. Any material UEFA collects would then go to Swiss prosecutors, who decide independently whether to act.

The legal fight runs alongside football politics: Infantino is seeking a fourth term at the FIFA election next March, and DW reports that challengers must declare by 18 November. For advisers to clubs, investors and federations, the lesson is that evidence held in New York can be pulled into a European dispute. Sports and entertainment specialists and New York advisers are listed in our directory, and our guide to enforcing a foreign judgment covers what happens when a cross-border case reaches its end.

Frequently asked questions

What did the court decide in the FIFA court case?

On 12 November 2026 Judge Jeannette Vargas in Manhattan refused to let FIFA's US subsidiaries intervene in UEFA's section 1782 application. She found they had no direct, substantial and legally protectable interest in it. She has not yet ruled on whether UEFA can obtain the evidence.

Does FIFA have to hand over documents now?

No. FIFA is not the target of the New York application and no documents have been ordered. UEFA wants evidence from Thrive Capital and Joshua Kushner, and the court must decide that application before any subpoenas are served.

What was the FIFA World Cup investor plan?

A proposal, announced on 28 July 2026, to place World Cup and Club World Cup commercial rights in a new company, FIFA Forward Enterprise, with a Thrive vehicle leading a minority investor group. It was withdrawn after objections from UEFA and other confederations.

What is section 1782 discovery?

It is a US statute letting a federal court order a person in its district to give testimony or produce documents for use in a foreign proceeding, including a criminal investigation before formal accusation. The foreign case need only be in reasonable contemplation.

Can UEFA bring criminal charges against Infantino?

UEFA cannot charge anyone. It says it may file a complaint for criminal mismanagement under Article 158 of the Swiss Criminal Code, which Swiss prosecutors would then assess. Infantino denies wrongdoing and has not been charged.

What happens next?

The New York court will rule on UEFA's application. If it is granted, Thrive and Kushner can challenge the subpoenas. Separate applications against JPMorgan, FIFA's US subsidiaries and Greg Maffei are pending in New York, Florida and Colorado.

Sources

1. UEFA, section 1782 application, No. 1:26-mc-00431 (S.D.N.Y.), 27 August 2026: Courthouse News
2. FIFA (Americas), Inc. and FWC2026 US, Inc., motion to intervene, No. 1:26-mc-00158 (D. Colo.), 1 September 2026: CourtListener
3. 28 U.S. Code section 1782, Assistance to foreign and international tribunals: Cornell Law School LII
4. Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (2004): Cornell Law School LII
5. ZF Automotive US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd., US Supreme Court, 13 June 2022: Cornell Law School LII
6. Reuters, US judge rejects FIFA bid to intervene in UEFA probe, 12 November 2026: The Straits Times
7. DW, FIFA loses bid to block UEFA evidence gathering against Infantino, 13 November 2026: DW
8. Press Association, FIFA fails in bid to stop UEFA disclosure order, 12 November 2026: Irish Examiner
9. Reuters, UEFA urges US court to deny FIFA subsidiaries' bid, 11 September 2026: Al Jazeera

About this article

Researched and written by The Corporate INTL Newsroom, which covers cross-border legal, regulatory and business developments for lawyers, professional advisers and financiers in over 150 jurisdictions. It is based on the court filings and legislation cited and on contemporaneous reporting of the 12 November ruling. It is general information, not legal advice. Last reviewed 13 November 2026. For more analysis visit our newsroom or subscribe to our newsletter.