Fifa's legal team has pushed back forcefully against Uefa's attempt to obtain discovery through US courts, describing the European governing body's actions as amounting to little more than a public relations exercise aimed at damaging Fifa's reputation.
In a filing submitted this week, attorney H Christopher Boehning, representing Fifa, urged a federal judge to reject or delay Uefa's discovery request. The filing characterized Uefa's legal maneuvers as "little more than press releases in further support of [a] smear campaign against Fifa and its leadership."
The dispute stems from Uefa's decision late last month to file four separate subpoena requests across different US courts. Uefa argued that it needed access to documents and communications in order to weigh potential criminal proceedings against Fifa president Gianni Infantino in connection with the contentious Fifa Forward Enterprise (FFE) plan, a proposal that sparked significant backlash within the football world.
Among the parties targeted by Uefa's requests were Joshua Kushner and Thrive Capital, the investment firm he leads, which had been positioned as the lead investor behind Infantino's FFE initiative. Uefa's filings also sought information from other entities connected to the deal, including banking giant JP Morgan.
Fifa moved to intervene in one of the four cases, filed in Florida, through its US-based subsidiary, Fifa US. A judge granted that request last week, and the new filing seeks permission for Fifa US to formally oppose the discovery request by 30 September.
In arguing against Uefa's push, Fifa's lawyers contended that discovery should not proceed, in part because Uefa has no active legal case against Fifa currently underway in Switzerland. The filing further claimed that granting the request would effectively allow Uefa to exploit American legal processes and public court filings to expose material Fifa is required to keep confidential under its own governing regulations.
The document also revisited the origins of the FFE proposal and suggested that Uefa's earlier threat to boycott Fifa competitions in response to the plan was driven by financial self-interest rather than genuine concern. According to the filing, expanding football's global reach and competitiveness would ultimately diminish Uefa's dominant market position and create more competition for its premier tournaments.
"If soccer is strengthened in the developing world, global competition increases, which ultimately reduces Uefa's market power and provides more competition for its flagship tournaments," the filing states. It further argues that "by raising funds to allow some of Fifa's smaller member associations to better develop soccer, FFE would lead to more players from those nations choosing to represent their countries of origin and playing in their home leagues rather than playing abroad."
To bolster this argument, the filing references a supportive assessment attributed to Cameroon federation president Samuel Eto'o, though he is identified in the document only as "one of the greatest African players in history," without naming him directly.
Beyond the substantive dispute over the FFE plan, Fifa's legal team also challenged Uefa's authority to pursue criminal action in Switzerland altogether. The filing maintains that Uefa is contractually obligated under Fifa's own statutes to resolve any disagreements through arbitration rather than criminal proceedings, effectively questioning the legal foundation of Uefa's entire discovery campaign.
The legal battle marks an escalation in tensions between the two governing bodies, whose relationship has grown increasingly strained since the unveiling of the FFE plan. With Fifa now formally contesting Uefa's request in Florida and the September 30 deadline approaching, the dispute appears set to continue playing out in US courts in the coming weeks.
Based on reporting from Guardian Football.