What the leaked FIFA ethics file reveals about Gianni Infantino

The leaked details of FIFA’s 2016 ethics investigation present two facts that need to be held together. The file describes travel, hospitality, expenses and appointments that investigators regarded as capable of creating integrity or conflict-of-interest concerns. But the independent ethics process ultimately found that Gianni Infantino had not violated FIFA’s ethics code, and that the benefits he received were not improper under the rules then in force. 19

That distinction is central to understanding why the revelations are politically damaging without, by themselves, establishing criminal wrongdoing.

What the file says about Infantino’s travel

According to reporting on the previously unpublished material, Infantino accepted seats on private aircraft connected to Vladimir Putin’s Russian government and Qatar during the first months of his FIFA presidency. The reported travel included trips associated with meetings involving Putin and the Emir of Qatar. 2412

The file also describes a flight from Milan to Rome arranged by Russian businessman Leon Semenenko for a Vatican visit. The trip reportedly combined an audience with Pope Francis and private travel involving Infantino’s wife and mother. Infantino characterised the papal meeting as private, while the surrounding circumstances became part of the ethics inquiry. 245

The concern was not simply that private aircraft had been used. The issue was whether third-party-paid travel and hospitality could create an appearance of obligation or a conflict with the FIFA president’s responsibilities. FIFA’s ethics investigators ultimately concluded that the flights did not breach the applicable code. 912

The 2016 inquiry cleared him—but did not erase the governance questions

The ethics investigation examined seven complaints made shortly after Infantino took office, according to reporting on the leaked file. Vanessa Allard led the investigation and cleared him on the allegations. FIFA’s public conclusion was that there had been no violation of the FIFA Code of Ethics and no improper benefit under the relevant regulations. 179

The result matters legally and factually: the 2016 inquiry was an exoneration under FIFA’s ethics rules. It should not be rewritten as a finding that every decision described in the file was beyond criticism. The leaked account instead shows how questions about transparency, disclosure and the appearance of independence surrounded the new presidency from its beginning.

Salary and hiring complaints added to the controversy

The leaked material also reportedly describes a dispute over Infantino’s employment contract. He declined to sign a proposed CHF 2 million salary, calling it “insulting” in comparison with the CHF 3.6 million remuneration associated with Sepp Blatter. 212

Other complaints concerned appointments and hiring procedures. Earlier reporting on the internal FIFA memo said the allegations included filling senior posts without checking candidates’ eligibility, alongside claims involving personal expenses and the use of FIFA resources. 114

The reported findings did not assign Infantino an ethics-code violation over those matters. The material instead attributed procedural failures in hiring to FIFA’s human-resources function, according to the reporting. Those allegations and findings should be described as contents of the leaked investigation, not as later criminal convictions or judicial findings.

Why the old file matters during the current FIFA power struggle

The ethics file has resurfaced as Infantino faces a separate dispute over FIFA’s abandoned private-investment proposal. UEFA filed an application in a U.S. court on 27 August seeking documents and testimony for use in a possible criminal complaint in Switzerland. UEFA says it is considering allegations of “criminal mismanagement” linked to the plan to transfer commercial rights connected to FIFA competitions into a new investment structure. 1718

The legal step is an evidence-gathering request, not a criminal charge and not proof that Infantino committed an offence. FIFA’s 2016 exoneration is therefore relevant context, but it does not determine the merits of UEFA’s separate allegations about the later investment plan.

Infantino abandoned that proposal after widespread opposition, saying it had created divisions and was no longer serving its intended objective. The plan had offered FIFA’s 211 member associations financial incentives in exchange for support.

Political pressure has also become visible within the football system. Concacaf president Victor Montagliani asked Infantino not to attend a youth tournament in the Dominican Republic, arguing that his presence would overshadow the event amid opposition to his leadership. Reuters reported that Infantino was facing pressure from UEFA, the Asian Football Confederation and Concacaf after the investment proposal collapsed.

The separate Under-15 proposal

Reporting has described another project associated with Infantino: a proposed Under-15 “World Cup” or festival involving all 211 FIFA member associations and inspired partly by baseball’s Little League World Series. FIFA reportedly held discussions with private investors about developing and commercialising the event.

A subsequent report said Infantino had not told the FIFA Council that outside investment proposals were being sought for the youth project. The available reporting supports the existence of the proposal and the reported investment discussions, but it does not establish that a final Baku tournament and festival had been formally announced.

The bottom line

The leaked file does not show that Infantino was found guilty in 2016. It shows that private-jet travel linked to powerful political and business interests, the Vatican itinerary, salary negotiations and hiring practices generated serious scrutiny at the start of his presidency—scrutiny that ended with an ethics clearance. 19

Its significance now is reputational and political. The old controversy reinforces arguments about transparency and the concentration of power, while UEFA’s current legal action concerns a different and much later proposal. Those issues are connected by the question of FIFA governance, but they remain separate matters of evidence and law.