The Swiss Gambling Supervisory Authority, notably known as “Gespa,” has made the rare move of filing a criminal complaint against FIFA. This is related to the federation’s blockchain-based fan token and ticketing offering. At the heart of this complaint is FIFA’s “RTB” (Right to Buy) token and its NFT platform FIFA Collect, which allows purchasers speculative access to tickets for the 2026 World Cup (and other fan-engagement assets) through payments and chance.
Here’s a detailed review of the latest developments, legal context, key issues and potential implications of the complaint.
Background: How This Issue Started
Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) is the governing body of global football. In recent years, FIFA has developed a fan-engagement and digital-asset strategy. As part of that:
- It launched the FIFA Collect platform, allowing fans to buy and trade digital collectibles (NFTs) tied to football moments and upcoming events.
- They came up with “Right to Buy” (RTB) tokens: digital assets that would give holders a priority option to buy tickets to the 2026 FIFA World Cup in the USA, Mexico, and Canada. The tokens create a connection between a purchase, a future event outcome (qualification for the team, assignment of games), and speculative resale value.
- The RTB tokens and the NFT platform also have “drops”, “challenges”, and secondary market trading of digital assets underpinned by the influence of chance and future outcomes.
These features sparked regulatory scrutiny in Switzerland because they contained elements of gambling: a monetary stake, chance (future outcome/qualification), and potentially a prize or increasing value.
Details of the Complaint: Principal Allegations by Gespa
Gespa publicly shared a number of findings from its investigation that form the basis of the criminal referral:
- In its investigation, Gespa “confirmed its suspicions that collect.fifa.com is offering gambling services that are not licensed in Switzerland.”
- It argues the only way to participate in certain competitions or token drops is “in exchange for a monetary stake, with monetary prizes available to be won. Whether participants win a prize, depends on random draws or similar processes.”
- It asserts that certain offerings are therefore part lottery and part sports betting, under the Swiss Federal Act on Gambling (Geldspielgesetz).
- As this was being provided by a platform operating without a Swiss gambling licence, the regulator states that it has an obligation under the law to alert the appropriate prosecutors.
- The complaint has been made to the authorities in the Vaud canton.
Therefore, the gist of the regulatory issue is that FIFA’s token/NFT offering is unlicensed gambling in Switzerland: Money was given, chance was a determining factor to the outcome/benefit, and a prize (ticket or resale value) could be derived from it.
Legal Context in Switzerland
To understand the act’s ramifications, we must understand the context in which Swiss law operates:
- The primary statute is the Federal Act on Gambling (Geldspielgesetz), which came into force on January 1, 2019. The act regulates the operations of casinos, lotteries, sports betting and large-scale Internet games of “chance” with a stake.
- The Swiss definition of gambling provides that an offering requiring a stake (payment), chance (random outcome, game), and prize (benefit) may be defined as gambling and requires a Swiss license to offer to Swiss residents.
- Foreign gambling operators are not permitted to offer gambling services in Switzerland without a license; any unauthorized offering may be subject to blocking of the website, enforcement actions, or a criminal referral.
- Gespa’s role is as the supervisory authority: it regulates, monitors, and investigates compliance with the Gambling Act, and must refer suspected violations to criminal enforcement authorities.
In this case, the logic follows that if the FIFA token/NFT model conforms with the stake/chance/prize elements and is available to Swiss residents, it may amount to an unauthorized offering of gambling under Swiss law.
Timeline of Events
Here is a reconstructed timeline of significant events and their public reporting:
- September 2022: FIFA launches the FIFA Collect NFT platform on the Algorand blockchain, with digital collectibles and fan engagement features.
- 2024–2025: RTB token (ready-to-buy tokens – priority ticket tokens for the 2026 World Cup, for specific teams, matches, and resale value potential) launch and implementation of public fan concern regarding pricing and speculation.
- Early October 2025: Gespa launches an investigation into the FIFA Collect NFT platform to determine if certain token sales/drops are gambling.
- 17th October 2025: Public reports surface that Gespa has filed a criminal complaint with Swiss law enforcement against FIFA.
- 23rd October 2025: Reports identify that the complaint was submitted, and question whether FIFA’s token and collection platform offered gambling services unlicensed in Switzerland.
- 31st October 2025: Industry analysis provides additional context on the regulatory impact of the complaint, as well as FIFA’s position, stating that any litigation will create precedent in the NFT/Web3 space for fan-assets.
So again, the events are ongoing, with the referral submitted to prosecutors while the legal matter remains open.
FIFA’s Reply and Public Position
So far, FIFA’s public reply has been limited:
FIFA refers to its FIFA Collect platform as offering “fan-engagement” and “digital collectible” products and is not gambling.
FIFA is adamant that the NFTs are like souvenirs, and the RTB tokens are integrated into their ticket-access architecture, not the result of a bet or chance game.
The organisation has suggested that further comments will be made after a deeper review or legal process unfolds.
Because of the very serious nature of the complaint, FIFA is likely to be under pressure to clarify its model, restructure offerings, or defend the legal classification of the tokens.
Why The Regulator is Concerned: Analysis of the Issues at Hand
There are several issues relating to FIFA’s token/NFT scheme that suggest concerns under gambling law:
Money At Stake
The RTB tokens and some NFT ‘drops’ require a payment. For example, FIFA was reportedly charging up to US$999 for the “Right to Final” token (for a team reaching the final).
By definition, this involves a financial contribution.
Luck / Uncertainty
Token holders may receive a token that grants them the right to buy a ticket if certain conditions are satisfied (e.g., a specific team qualifies or has a match assignment). As such, there is significant uncertainty about the final utility of the token/NFT or whether it will provide value. This simulates a “game of chance.”
Moreover, certain token drops provide digital assets without specifying how (burning, random draw, etc.). This is more closely aligned with lottery/raffle mechanics.
Prize or Benefit
The benefits are twofold:
(i) the entitlement to purchase a real-world ticket for the 2026 World Cup (which presumably has significant value or resale value); and
(ii) the potential to sell or trade the token/NFT within a secondary market for profit. The question for Gespa is whether this is a “prize” or a benefit under Swiss law.
Secondary Market Speculation
If the value of the tokens/NFTs appreciates (dependent on teams’ performance or supply/scarcity), there is also a speculative element to trading. This blends the line between a pure collectible and a financial gambling instrument. This could also fall into “NFT gambling”.
Access for Swiss Residents and Licensing
If Swiss residents access the platform available (through website or online purchase), Swiss jurisdictional obligations would be imposed. If the offering fits the definition of gambling and does not have a Swiss license, it could potentially be deemed illegal. Gespa argues that in such matters, it would have an obligation to refer for a criminal prosecution.
In total, these factors mean the regulator thinks the token/NFT offering is not simply merchandise or digital collectibles, but likely a regulated gambling activity.
What Would a Referral Entail? Legal Results and Paths Forward
The filing of a criminal complaint is a significant escalation. Some potential consequences would include:
- The Swiss Public Prosecutor’s office could conduct a full criminal investigation into FIFA’s activities in Switzerland and could lead to a charge if found liable.
- If FIFA is determined to be offering unlicensed gambling services within Switzerland, it would have to cease the multi-sport event for Swiss users and incur penalties and/or fines.
- Even if FIFA were not convicted criminals, the pressure could force them to redesign their token/NFT offering in such a manner that it was no longer a gambling activity (i.e., removing the chance/random element and/or limiting access to the platform to non-Swiss users, and/or obtaining a license to offer a gambling service in Switzerland).
- Outside of Switzerland, the case could create precedent. Regulators in other jurisdictions might find similar token/NFT models in sports, entertainment and the Web3 space and apply gambling law accordingly.
- Sport governing bodies, ticketing platforms and blockchain fan-engagement projects will be paying close attention. The decision could influence how digital access rights, tickets, tokenised fan assets and blockchain collectibles are viewed under gambling or consumer-protection regulations.
- For fans, this could signal changes about how tokenised ticketing rights are offered, priced, and sold, as a result of potential for more regulatory oversight, clearer disclosures, and limitations on speculative resale.
Implications for the Industry and General Significance
This case falls at the intersection of sport, blockchain/NFT innovation, and gambling regulation. Potential issues with broader implications include:
Industry Ticketing and Fan-Tokens: Many sports organizations are exploring blockchain and digital assets as distinctions for fan engagement. If rental rights in the form of tokens become regulated as gambling, many such business models may require significant shifting in how they are operated.
NFTs and “Chance”: The distinction between a collectible and a lottery becomes hazy with regard to NFTs that may involve mechanisms such as packs being opened, random draws, or one that involves future outcomes (i.e., the token will be redeemable only if the event occurs). As a result, regulations may begin to scrutinize these as well.
Cross-Jurisdiction Regulatory Risk: While Switzerland is a single jurisdiction, sports organizations do operate in more than one jurisdiction. A regulatory finding in Switzerland could motivate regulators in the EU/UK/Asia/Americas to evaluate their own local laws, creating a patchwork of regulators who are involved in the subsequent decision-making.
Secondary Markets and Speculation: The behaviour involved in trading NFTs and tokens generates similar discussions as ownership and the appreciation based on performance/scarcity. If a fan token is being traded as a speculation, it could be considered a financial instrument or be analyzed as gambling behaviour.
Protection of Consumers and Transparency: Fans may think they are buying a collectible or ticket right and not entering a form of gambling. Regulators might require greater disclosure, risk warnings, and separating pure merchandise from “chance-driven” offerings.
Overall, the FIFA-Gespa complaint may represent a watershed moment in how regulators treat digital fan-assets.
Outstanding Inquiries and Challenges
Although the complaint has been initiated, numerous queries remain unresolved and complicated:
Will prosecutors in Switzerland decide to bring the charges? The complaint is a referral; the eventual outcome is not clear.
What precise defense exists for FIFA’s model: will it claim the tokens are unrelated to chance and the tickets are not “prizes” but merchandise/rights?
How many residents in Switzerland used the platform/token offering, and did the Swiss jurisdiction apply in this case? Jurisdiction and access are in question.
From a global perspective, will FIFA alter its offering worldwide or just for Switzerland? Will other jurisdictions respond the same way?
How will the definition of “gambling” be defined in relation to NFTs and digital assets? Regulators will need to work to improve their concepts of chance, stake and prize within a tokenized framework.
What will happen to the fans who bought RTB tokens? Will there be recourse if the offering becomes defined as gambling, or will the value of the tokens decline?
How will sports organizations adjust their digitized strategies to minimize regulatory risk but still have a fan product that creates an innovative and exciting experience for the fan?
These inquiries mean the case is not about FIFA’s prior misconduct but influences the future business models and regulations.
What Does This Mean for Fans, Buyers, and The Secondary Market?
Fans or Token Buyers:
If tokens were delivered through the RTB model, the propositions of value become obscured: will the right to buy a ticket be honoured, is there a ticket resale market that is not distressed, etc? A new question about regulation: Will regulatory changes inhibit liquidity?
Increased scrutiny of secondary-market sales of tokens/NFTs of tickets may produce or amplify volatility in valuation.
Legal protections for buyers may be clearer, for example, if an offering is considered “gambling” but marketed as “collectible”, buyers may have a complaint.
Sports organizations may become more conservative, possibly increasing prices, issuing fewer tokens, or changing the terms to ensure firm compliance with regulation.
Secondary Market:
Tokens dependent on speculation for value might see a diminished value should legal/regulatory risk become evident.
The platforms offering to trade these assets could restrict Swiss users or revise terms globally to mitigate legal risk.
Collectors might use more low model technology that has a pure digital collectible (exclusively) role (no chance/contest) rather than token speculation.
The criminal complaint lodged by Gespa against FIFA represents more than a regulatory footnote. It represents a watershed moment in how digital fan-assets, tokenised ticketing rights and blockchain-based fan-engagement models are viewed under gambling and consumer-protection law.
While FIFA is adamant that its token/NFT offerings are collectible and access-based, the fact that they involve payment, chance and possible monetary reward (via ticket purchase rights or resale) has sparked a formal review in Switzerland. The full legal ramifications are unknown, but the message is clear: all sporting organisations, Web3 platforms and the sporting public need to understand that the regulatory landscape has changed.
Fans, buyers and collectors must be alert as to what a token/NFT really gives you title to; and for the sporting organisations, proper legal structuring and disclosures are not merely advisable, but necessary. This case may be the herald of an era of legal regulation and scrutiny for something previously considered a novelty merchandising item: sports fan tokens and digital collectibles are now clearly on the list for gambling supervision.
