The Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) has written to FIFA Secretary General Mattias Grafström demanding detailed answers to 42 questions concerning the governing body’s financial decisions, governance and leadership, including whether United States President Donald Trump was offered an equity stake in a proposed investment venture.
The development was reported by football journalist Ben Jacobs in a post on his official X account, citing a letter sent by UEFA to FIFA.
The questions cover a range of issues, from the abandoned FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE) proposal to disciplinary decisions, presidential remuneration and the independence of FIFA’s oversight bodies.
According to Jacobs, UEFA has requested written responses and supporting documents by Monday, November 2, 2026, insisting that the issues should not be postponed until the next FIFA Council meeting.
The letter follows a request by FIFA President Gianni Infantino at a council meeting in Zurich last week for members to submit their questions in writing.
UEFA said it wanted a substantive written response to every question, together with all relevant supporting documentation, arguing that the matters required immediate clarification.
At the centre of the dispute is FIFA Forward Enterprise, a proposed commercial venture that would have opened the organisation’s commercial operations to private investment.
The plan drew criticism from football officials over transparency, consultation and the proposed involvement of external investors before it was withdrawn in August 2026.
Reuters has reported that the proposal contributed to mounting pressure on Infantino over his leadership and FIFA’s governance arrangements.
Among the questions UEFA has raised is why an exclusivity agreement involving Thrive Capital was signed without prior consultation with the FIFA Council and why the investment firm was selected without a competitive tendering process.
The European governing body also wants FIFA to explain when the investment proposal was first considered, how it progressed before its public announcement and what measures will be introduced to prevent similar governance concerns in the future.
UEFA is seeking access to all documents relating to FFE and has questioned whether a proposed review of FIFA’s governance framework would adequately examine past decisions.
It has also asked whether FIFA would support a genuinely independent investigation into the development of the venture, including Infantino’s personal role.
The letter raises questions about the proposed venture’s reported valuation of $20 billion and the financial reasoning behind plans to attract private investors, despite FIFA’s financial resources.
UEFA also wants clarification on why increased funding for member associations was linked to the proposed investment rather than being financed directly from FIFA’s own reserves.
Another area of scrutiny concerns the possibility of financial benefits for individuals involved in the proposed venture.
UEFA has asked whether Infantino would have held any position, ownership interest, entitlement to remuneration or other economic benefit connected to FFE had the project proceeded.
The questions extend beyond the investment proposal to include matters involving the United States government and FIFA’s handling of disciplinary cases.
UEFA has requested details about a reported telephone conversation between Trump and Infantino concerning the disciplinary case involving United States player Folarin Balogun.
It wants FIFA to explain what was discussed, how Infantino responded and whether the case would have been reviewed without the reported intervention.
The letter also seeks the full written reasons for the disciplinary decision and clarification of the criteria used in comparable cases. UEFA has questioned why an amendment to Article 27 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code was considered necessary following the controversy.
The European body has further raised questions about the regulatory basis for the extended half-time interval during the 2026 World Cup final and the introduction of mandatory hydration breaks.
It wants FIFA to identify who authorised the decisions and explain whether the relevant football rule-making authorities were consulted.
Several questions concern transparency surrounding FIFA’s relationship with Trump and individuals associated with him.
These include the establishment of the FIFA Peace Prize, a reported lease involving office premises in Trump Tower, a proposed cryptocurrency initiative and sponsorship arrangements connected to the World Cup.
UEFA has also sought clarification on the reported relocation of the World Cup draw to Washington, D.C., the involvement of members of Trump’s family in tournament events and the announcement of a $75 million investment in Palestine.
The letter asks FIFA to explain the decision-making processes behind these matters and whether the appropriate governing bodies were consulted or asked to approve them.
Questions about financial accountability also feature prominently. UEFA has requested information about reports of additional remuneration received by Infantino, payments or benefits provided to entertainer Marc Anthony in connection with the World Cup, and expenditure on private aircraft and accommodation.
It has also sought clarification on whether premium hospitality suites at the tournament were provided to celebrities and other guests free of charge, as well as access to the complete list of guests seated in the VIP and VVIP sections during the final.
The remaining questions focus on FIFA’s presidential election process and the independence of its electoral and ethics bodies.
UEFA has raised concerns about the neutrality of FIFA’s administration during the official electoral campaign period, including a reported communication expressing support for Infantino.
It has also questioned potential conflicts of interest involving officials responsible for overseeing elections and ethics proceedings.
The European governing body wants FIFA to explain what safeguards are in place to ensure that the organisation’s resources are not used to favour a candidate and that complaints involving its president are handled independently and impartially.
