Uefa confirms six-figure departure payment as Infantino relationship allegations surface

Uefa acknowledges payment, FIFA rejects relationship claim

Uefa has confirmed that a female employee received a six-figure departure payment during Gianni Infantino's tenure as the organisation's general secretary, from 2009 to 2016. The Daily Telegraph first reported the payment on Friday night, alleging the woman had been in a relationship with Infantino and that the financial settlement followed that alleged relationship. FIFA issued a statement calling the allegations "categorically untrue".

Uefa's confirmation covered two financial arrangements: the six-figure departure payment and coverage of MBA course fees, which Uefa said formed part of the same exit package. Uefa stated both payments were "in line" with regulations at the time. The organisation did not address the relationship allegation, leaving FIFA to handle that element of the response.

Infantino's Uefa years under fresh scrutiny

Infantino served as Uefa general secretary for seven years before his election as FIFA president in 2016. That period encompassed the expansion of the European Championship and the implementation of Financial Fair Play regulations.

The general secretary role at Uefa is the organisation's most senior administrative position, responsible for day-to-day operations and execution of decisions made by the Uefa Executive Committee. The post-holder manages relationships with 55 member associations and oversees competition governance.

A departure payment of this size to a staff member during that tenure raises governance questions irrespective of the relationship allegation. Uefa's defence rests on the payment complying with contemporary regulations. What remains unanswered is whether such payments were routine for senior administrative staff or represented something outside normal practice.

FIFA's categorical denial and the gap around it

FIFA's statement focused exclusively on the relationship allegation, not on Uefa's confirmation that a six-figure sum changed hands. Denying a relationship is one thing. Explaining why a six-figure exit payment and MBA funding were offered to a staff member is a separate question, and one that sits with Uefa rather than FIFA.

Ceferin has sought to distance Uefa from its past through public disputes with FIFA over competition calendars and the aborted Super League project. A story about financial settlements during the previous administration complicates that positioning, even though the current regime inherited none of the responsibility.

Journalists covering Saturday's FIFA Council proceedings in Vienna reported officials declining to discuss the Telegraph story on the record. Off-camera, several federation representatives privately expressed frustration at the distraction the allegations posed on the eve of a week scheduled to focus on World Cup preparations and global competition reform.

Ceferin was asked about the report during a corridor exchange with reporters. The Slovenian offered no comment, according to two journalists present, before being ushered into a scheduled meeting room.

"These allegations are categorically untrue."

That single sentence is all FIFA has put on the record. For an organisation still dealing with the fallout of the 2015 corruption scandal, a terse denial absent further detail is a familiar posture.

Pressure points and unanswered questions

The immediate pressure falls on Uefa to explain the departure payment in greater detail. Confirming that a payment was made and stating it was regulation-compliant answers the narrow question of whether the transaction occurred. It does not answer why the employee departed, whether similar payments were made to other senior staff, or whether the MBA funding formed part of a standard exit package or something exceptional.

For Infantino, the allegations surface as FIFA pushes forward with an expanded 32-team Club World Cup in 2025 amid continued tension with Uefa over the international match calendar. A personal controversy rooted in his Uefa years pulls attention back to institutional history rather than forward planning.

The story also feeds long-standing tensions between FIFA and Uefa. The two organisations have clashed repeatedly over scheduling, competition formats, and financial distribution. A dispute involving a payment made during the tenure of a man who now runs FIFA adds a personal element to an already strained institutional relationship, even if both organisations would prefer to keep the matter closed.