Uefa has posed a great number of questions about FFE.
“When was the idea of FFE first explored, by whom and with what objective?” Uefa asked. “Who within Fifa authorised the development of the project, and which members of the Fifa administration were involved?
“What concrete measures will Fifa put in place to ensure that the shortcomings identified in the FFE process cannot occur again in the future?”
Uefa requested information on whether Infantino would have held or expected to hold any position, role or function in FFE, either during or following his tenure as Fifa president.
The relationship with Joshua Kushner’s Thrive Capital was covered in detail, asking why an agreement granting exclusivity to the company was signed without prior consultation of the Fifa Council.
“Why was Thrive Capital selected as lead investor, without any competitive tendering process and under conditions of strict confidentiality, despite its links to the family of the recipient of the Fifa Peace Prize?” Uefa asked.
Kushner is the brother of Donald Trump’s son-in-law, while the US president was awarded the Peace Prize.
Uefa also requested answer about the award of the Peace Prize, specifically who decided to establish it, for what purpose, and who decided that Trump should receive it.
When the FFE plan was revealed in the days following the World Cup final, Infantino told the 211 member associations (MAs) they would receive $40m (£30m) if they backed it. He then set a deadline of 19 September for federations to accept his plans if they wanted to access an initial $20m (£15m).
However, once the scheme was abandoned, Uefa and Concacaf called on Fifa to pay at least $10m (£7.5m) from its cash reserves to each of the MAs and, last week, Infantino agreed, proposing to increase the amount of money handed out for football development across the world by $3.4bn (£2.6bn).
The releasing of cash from its reserves will result in double the level of planned distribution funding for MAs from 2027 to 2030, with $25m (£19m) available per member association.
“Why was substantially increased funding for MAs presented in connection with FFE and external investment, rather than being financed directly from Fifa’s own resources?” Uefa has asked.
“Given Fifa’s strong financial position, why was it considered necessary to seek investment from private investors? What financial or strategic advantages would such an arrangement have offered compared with funding football development directly from Fifa’s own resources, particularly in light of Fifa’s subsequent proposal to do precisely that on a substantially increased scale?”
While Fifa is yet to respond, sources have indicated its ability to answer certain questions are restricted by the legal action that Uefa has launched. Last month, it filed legal papers in the US requesting disclosure of evidence and documents from Fifa, warning it could lodge a criminal complaint in Switzerland.
