Sovereign Debtors Caught Offside

The 2026 men’s FIFA World Cup begins next month across the United States, Mexico and Canada. For most of the 48 competing nations, the tournament is a matter of sporting prestige. For a handful, it presents a more immediate problem: their creditors may use it as an enforcement opportunity.

Recent US subpoenas targeting assets connected to Spain’s national football team illustrate the point. They also offer a template. Creditors holding judgments and arbitral awards against sovereign debtors now have reason to examine whether the World Cup creates new avenues for asset identification, disclosure and reputational pressure.

Spain: Not Playing Ball

The US-registered investment vehicle Blasket Renewable Investments LLC is seeking to enforce several arbitral awards against Spain arising from Spain's withdrawal of certain renewable energy subsidies. Blasket acquired the awards and, as Spain has not complied with them, is now seeking to execute against Spanish assets in the US.

As part of these efforts, Blasket has served subpoenas on US-based financial institutions, seeking information on the assets of dozens of Spanish bodies, including government ministries and state-owned companies. It has also targeted companies providing services to the Spanish football team, seeking details of payments by the Spanish state or on its behalf. Parties served in this way include the hotel where the team is staying, the kit provider Adidas, and the school where the team will train. News of the subpoenas has made it into the national Spanish press.

Spain has argued that the subpoenas connected to its football team are inappropriate, on the basis that the team and its associated federation are private bodies. Blasket disputes this, maintaining that it is “entitled to any information that reasonably might lead to assets that could satisfy” the debt.

Spain has also characterised the subpoenas as an attempt to cause international embarrassment rather than a legitimate means of identifying assets. Even if this is so, causing embarrassment may be a secondary objective for Blasket: a creditor that cannot immediately identify recoverable assets may nonetheless benefit from the reputational pressure such action creates. Investigators can help creditors and their counsel identify subpoena targets suited to both asset recovery and the application of pressure against the debtor.

Nuisance as Strategy

As we have discussed previously, the challenges of recovering from sovereign debtors – including sovereign immunity and alter ego arguments – mean that creditors should consider how causing nuisance and applying reputational pressure might help encourage settlement. Even if Blasket does not identify recoverable assets via these subpoenas, the exercise may nonetheless cause enough difficulty for Spain to compel payment. And if it is successful in either measure, then this will be an example of how a creative strategy and potentially aggressive pressure tactics can be critical to monetising a judgment or award against a sovereign.

Other disputes with sovereigns illustrate this. In 2024, a French court granted the Chinese company Zhongshan Fucheng Industrial Investment interim attachment orders over three aircraft in Nigeria’s presidential fleet, which were stationed in France. This formed part of Zhongshan’s efforts to enforce a USD 74.5 million award against the west African state. The seizure drew scrutiny to the Nigerian government’s lavish expenditure at a time of severe economic difficulty. The parties settled within months; the timing suggests the French attachment was a significant factor.

Argentina settled its dispute with the American investment management firm Elliott Capital Management for USD 2.4 billion in 2016 after Elliot had pursued the sovereign across multiple jurisdictions. These efforts included seizing an Argentinian naval vessel while it was docked in Ghana, a move which generated significant media coverage and may have contributed to Argentina's decision to negotiate.

Creditors holding sovereign debt should therefore consider such tactics, especially when there are few readily attachable assets – that is, real estate or shares held directly in the name of the state or its agencies and serving a commercial purpose (which reduces the scope for sovereign immunity arguments). Investigators can identify moveable assets, establish their ownership by the debtor state, track their movements and help determine where they may be impounded.

The Dollar as an Enforcement Tool

Given the dollar's continued dominance in global trade and finance, the US can provide a route to information about a sovereign's assets and financial activities worldwide. Dollar-denominated transactions flow through US banks, and details of those transactions can be accessed via court process. A creditor that retrieves the relevant information may identify not only assets within the US but also fund flows to other enforcement-friendly jurisdictions and, potentially, further points of leverage.

This is in part what Blasket is seeking to achieve with its recent subpoenas. Its counsel have noted that it is not “unusual for the judgment creditor to seek disclosure related to assets held outside the jurisdiction of the court where the discovery request is made,” and that such disclosure may help identify assets subject to execution.

The investment company FG Hemisphere Associates LLC similarly took discovery and sought to apply pressure via US courts in its efforts to enforce judgments of over USD 30 million against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). As we have discussed previously, FG Hemisphere alleged that the brother of the DRC’s former president Joseph Kabila had used misappropriated state funds to purchase four US properties. FG Hemisphere subpoenaed financial institutions and spoke with witnesses to trace fund flows into the US; a US court subsequently found that it had reasonably demonstrated that the properties “may very well be subject to the judgments it holds against the DRC” and permitted attachment of the assets in 2023. This action in turn drew attention to apparent corruption close to the highest levels of the country’s government. Settlement discussions between FG Hemisphere and the DRC are now at an advanced stage, with the former’s efforts potentially having encouraged this. An investigator can advise on creative methods such as those which FG Hemisphere used, helping identify subpoena targets, reviewing the resulting information and helping to ‘follow the money’ to prepare findings for submission as evidence.

A Red Card for Other Sovereign Debtors?

How Blasket's enforcement efforts develop remains to be seen, but other countries with teams competing in the World Cup may face comparable scrutiny. Argentina’s creditors include hedge funds seeking US recognition of English judgments won against it in 2023 and 2024. The DRC remains a target, particularly if FG Hemisphere's settlement discussions do not conclude successfully. Türkiye and Iraq also have creditors attempting to pursue them in US courts. Each of these creditors may be watching Blasket's approach and assessing whether to seek disclosure relating to their own debtors' assets via their football teams’ activities, including after the tournament ends.

The cases discussed here demonstrate how creditors, counsel and investigators can work together to apply pressure through court process and non-judicial means. A well-prepared investigative strategy should seek not only assets but also subpoena targets and points of leverage capable of encouraging settlement.

The 2028 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles will bring a further concentration of foreign officials and state-linked funds to US soil. For holders of sovereign debt, it presents another opportunity to seek disclosure and enforce judgments and awards. It also merits early preparation.