World Cup Lawsuits Against FIFA: AG Probes and Antitrust

FIFA is facing an unusual concentration of legal challenges tied to the 2026 World Cup. The most active fronts are the World Cup lawsuits against FIFA and related investigations targeting ticket sales: attorneys general in four U.S. states have opened consumer-protection inquiries, European supporter and consumer groups have filed a formal antitrust complaint with the European Commission, and a Dallas artist has sued in federal court over a mural painted over ahead of the tournament. A separate antitrust case brought by promoter Relevent Sports, which named FIFA as a co-defendant, settled in 2024 and 2025.

State Attorney General Investigations Into Ticket Sales

Four state attorneys general have opened investigations into how FIFA sold 2026 World Cup tickets. The common thread across the inquiries is a pattern in which fans paid for early tickets based on published seating information, then saw the rules or maps changed to their disadvantage.

New York and New Jersey

On May 27, 2026, New York Attorney General Letitia James and New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport issued subpoenas to FIFA for internal ticketing documents covering the eight matches at MetLife Stadium, including the July 19 final. The New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection joined the effort.¹

The core allegation is that FIFA published color-coded seating charts fans relied on during early sales, then in April 2026 introduced a new premium tier called “Front Categories” carved out of the most desirable seats within each existing category. Buyers who had already paid were excluded from those seats and, in some cases, were reassigned further from the pitch, including behind the goals or in upper sections.² Davenport accused FIFA of creating “fake scarcity” by withholding blocks of tickets to push prices higher on remaining inventory.¹

Investigators also pointed to broad price increases. Between October 2025 and April 2026, prices rose for more than 90 of the 104 scheduled matches, and the three main ticket categories increased by an average of 34 percent.³ New York is proceeding under General Business Law § 349, which prohibits deceptive acts and practices. New Jersey is using the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, which allows for treble damages and mandatory attorneys’ fees.⁴

FIFA declined to comment on the subpoenas.⁵ Because FIFA could legally challenge the subpoenas, analysts considered a response before the June 11 kickoff unlikely.²

California

California Attorney General Rob Bonta opened a separate inquiry roughly two weeks earlier. On May 14, 2026, Bonta wrote to FIFA’s chief legal officer seeking documentation on how seat categories were represented for matches at SoFi Stadium and Levi’s Stadium, with a response deadline of May 29.⁶ The complaints match the pattern elsewhere: fans paid thousands for early tickets without specific seat assignments and later received seats with obstructed views or in unexpected sections. Bonta is reviewing possible violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act.⁴

Texas

On June 9, 2026, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced an investigation focused on matches in Arlington and Houston, citing complaints from fans who bought “Category 1” seats and were later reassigned to “Category 2” after FIFA adjusted its maps.⁷ The inquiry is examining potential violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. FIFA had not responded when the investigation was announced.⁸

How FIFA Has Responded, and What Its Terms Say

FIFA’s public position is consistent but narrow. On the maps, it says its “indicative category maps” were for “guidance purposes only” and never meant to reflect exact seat layouts, a stance it says is covered by its Ticket Terms of Use.² On prices, FIFA President Gianni Infantino said in May 2026 that the organization must “look at the market” and “apply market rates,” given that the tournament is in North America, where entertainment costs are among the highest in the world.⁵ FIFA has also emphasized its not-for-profit status and said ticket revenue is reinvested in global soccer development.⁹

The ticket contract itself carries binding individual arbitration, a class-action waiver, and a broad covenant not to sue. To opt out of arbitration, a buyer must mail a physical letter within a set window. Legal commentators have described these as aggressive risk-transfer terms, but no court had ruled on their enforceability as of mid-2026, and no private class actions from ticket buyers had been filed in U.S. courts by late May, though experts said the facts would suit class treatment.⁴

The European Commission Antitrust Complaint

On March 24, 2026, Football Supporters Europe (FSE) and Euroconsumers filed an 18-page complaint with the European Commission accusing FIFA of abusing a dominant position over World Cup ticket sales in violation of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.¹⁰¹¹

The complaint identifies six categories of alleged abuse. Tickets for the MetLife Stadium final start at $4,185, which FSE says is seven times the cheapest final ticket at the 2022 World Cup and 40 times the cheapest at the 2024 European Championship.¹⁰ The filing also challenges FIFA’s use of demand-based “variable pricing” without caps or advance disclosure, the limited availability of the promoted $60 group-stage tickets, and the 15 percent commission FIFA charges both buyers and sellers on its resale platform.¹² The original North American bid projected an average ticket price of $1,408 and promised tickets starting at $21.¹³

The complainants lean in part on the Court of Justice of the European Union’s December 2023 European Super League ruling, which held that FIFA and UEFA are “undertakings” subject to EU competition law when they organize and market competitions as economic activity.¹¹ FSE and Euroconsumers asked the Commission for interim measures freezing prices for European fans, halting dynamic pricing, and requiring more inventory transparency.¹⁰

By late May 2026, the Commission had not confirmed whether it would open a formal investigation and had taken no public action on the interim measures. It has discretion over which complaints to pursue and no obligation to act. With the tournament starting June 11, analysts saw effectively no path to interim relief in time to affect 2026 ticket sales.¹⁴ FIFA had not publicly responded to the complaint.⁹

The Wyland Mural Lawsuit in Federal Court

On June 1, 2026, the marine-life artist known as Wyland filed a $25 million federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas after his mural “Ocean Life” was painted over in Dallas during World Cup preparations. The mural, 82 feet high and 164 feet across at its widest, had been on the building for nearly three decades.¹⁵

The defendants are FIFA, the building’s property owner 3PZ Property Company, and management firm Slate Asset Management. Wyland alleges the destruction violated the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, which protects works of “recognized stature” from being destroyed without the artist’s consent or notification.¹⁶

The defendants gave different answers. FIFA denied any involvement and directed questions to the local organizing committee. Slate Asset Management said local World Cup organizers had asked for the wall space and told the building management that Wyland had been contacted. The North Texas organizing committee, which is not named as a defendant, declined to comment.¹⁶ The case was in its earliest stages in early June 2026, with no motions or rulings on record.¹⁷

The Relevent Sports Antitrust Case (Settled)

A separate antitrust case predating the 2026 tournament has now been resolved. In September 2019, Relevent Sports, a promoter controlled by Miami Dolphins owner Stephen M. Ross, sued the U.S. Soccer Federation after being denied permission to host official foreign league matches on U.S. soil. FIFA was added as a co-defendant the following year.¹⁸

Relevent alleged that U.S. Soccer conspired with FIFA to shield Soccer United Marketing, the commercial arm of Major League Soccer, from competition. The dispute grew out of a 2018 attempt to bring a regular-season La Liga match between Barcelona and Girona to Miami. FIFA then adopted a policy barring domestic leagues from playing official season matches outside their home territories.¹⁹

A federal judge in Manhattan dismissed the case in 2021, finding that following FIFA policy did not itself prove an unlawful conspiracy. In May 2023, the Second Circuit revived the case, holding that a binding association rule governing members’ separate businesses could be direct evidence of concerted action under antitrust law. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in April 2024, after the Solicitor General filed a 23-page brief urging the Court to leave the appeals ruling in place. That brief argued U.S. Soccer “was not a randomly selected FIFA member, nor was it a passive or unknowing bystander” in enforcing the policy.¹⁸²⁰

Relevent and FIFA reached a confidential settlement in 2024, after which FIFA formed a working group of 10 to 15 members to revise the rules on matches played outside a league’s home territory. On April 9, 2025, Relevent moved to dismiss the remaining claims against U.S. Soccer with prejudice, closing the case. Financial terms of both settlements were not disclosed. The resolution is expected to open the U.S. market to foreign league matches.¹⁹

The Match Calendar Complaint

Another EU competition proceeding targets FIFA’s control over the international match calendar rather than tickets. European Leagues, FIFPRO Europe, and La Liga jointly complained to the European Commission that FIFA unilaterally imposes scheduling decisions producing fixture congestion and conflicts between its regulatory and commercial roles.²¹ FIFPRO Europe is also pursuing parallel action in the Brussels Court of Commerce.²² No rulings or interim measures had been issued in either proceeding as of early 2026. MLS Commissioner Don Garber said that “sometimes it takes a little disruption to get everybody to sit at the same table and make the right decisions.”²³

1
The Guardian. New York New Jersey Investigation FIFA Ticketing
2
The Athletic. New York NJ Attorney General FIFA World Cup Tickets Investigation
3
New York Attorney General. Attorney General James and Attorney General Davenport Subpoena FIFA Over World Cup Ticketing
4
Forbes. Bait and Switch on the Pitch: Potential Challenges to FIFA’s Ticketing Policies
5
ESPN. New Jersey New York Subpoena FIFA World Cup Tickets
6
The Hill. World Cup Ticket Concerns
7
Texas Attorney General. Attorney General Ken Paxton Investigates FIFA to Ensure Fans Have Access to Accurate and Honest Pricing
8
NBC DFW. Texas Investigates World Cup Ticketing After Fans Report Worse Seats Than Advertised
9
BBC Sport. Supporters Group File Complaint Against FIFA Over World Cup Ticket Prices
10
The Athletic. World Cup Ticket Prices Complaint
11
Politico EU. FIFA EU Complaint World Cup Ticket Pricing
12
Euroconsumers. FIFA World Cup Ticket Practices
13
Al Jazeera. Supporters Group File Lawsuit Against FIFA Over World Cup Ticket Prices
14
Linklaters. World Cup Ticketing and EU Competition Law
15
The New York Times. Dallas Whale Mural Wyland Lawsuit FIFA World Cup Texas
16
KERA News. Artist Suing FIFA Over Destruction of Dallas Whale Mural Before World Cup
17
Bloomberg Law. FIFA Spat Over Dallas Whale Mural Tests Power of Artists Rights
18
ESPN. USSF Relevent Settlement Clears Path for Foreign League Games
19
The Athletic. Relevent Sports US Soccer Lawsuit Settlement
20
U.S. Department of Justice. CVSG Brief, United States Soccer Federation v. Relevent Sports
21
FIFPRO. Joint Statement European Leagues and FIFPRO Europe
22
FIFPRO. FIFPRO Europe Board Discuss Ongoing Action Around International Match Calendar
23
ESPN. FIFA Lawsuit Spark Talks Calendar Woes MLS Boss