The Swiss criminal investigation into suspected irregularities and money-laundering over Fifa’s award of the 2018 and 2022 World Cups to Russia and Qatar is examining the money paid for the friendly Argentina played against Brazil in Qatar three weeks before the vote. The Swiss attorney general’s office said it took possession of documents “on a cooperative basis” from the agency Kentaro, which organised the match, and Kentaro’s chief executive, Philipp Grothe, has said he spent hours with investigators providing information on where the money went.

The revelation that prosecutors are investigating that match has prompted speculation that the money paid was key to securing the votes of the Argentina and Brazil football association presidents, Julio Grondona and Ricardo Teixeira, who were then members of Fifa’s 22-man executive committee (exco), for Qatar to host the 2022 World Cup.

In March 2012 Teixeira resigned from the exco and his 22-year presidency of the Brazil Football Confederation (CBF), shortly before a Swiss court document was published showing he had been paid millions of dollars in bribes in the late 1990s on Fifa’s sale of contracts to the marketing company ISL. He was last week indicted by prosecutors in Brazil on charges relating to tax evasion, money-laundering and fraud.

Grondona, who was appointed to head the Argentina Football Association (AFA) in 1979 by one of the leading army figures in the country’s military junta, joined the Fifa exco in 1988 and was the hugely powerful chair of the organisation’s finance committee until he died last year, aged 82.

It appears, however, that the Swiss prosecutors’ investigation into the match is not focusing on alleged improper payments from Qatar in return for votes. Fifa’s investigation into the match, by the former US prosecutor Michael Garcia, apparently did not find that to have been a concern. Instead, the focus appeared to be on whether the agreed portion of $2m legitimately paid to Argentina, via an agency, World Eleven, as the cost of having the all-star national team play the friendly, did indeed reach the AFA. It is two companies in Buenos Aires, unnamed by prosecutors but not including World Eleven, that are understood to be under suspicion.

The Zurich-based financial services firm Swiss Mideast, with close links to Qatar, which organised the financing of the friendly on behalf of the Qatari construction firm GSSG, said it had made no payments outside the $8.6m it agreed with Kentaro as the total cost of the friendly.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Argentina’s Gabriel Heinze heads the ball away from Brazil’s David Luiz during the friendly in Doha. Photograph: Fadi Al-Assaad/Reuters

Kentaro, which had the rights at the time to the Brazil national team’s famous “world tour” of friendly matches, is understood to have agreed to pay the AFA $2m for playing the match, which included a $400,000 commission to World Eleven in Buenos Aires. The fee to the CBF was less, given the match was part of the long-term contract for Brazil team friendlies; it was just under $1.5m, paid via the CBF’s agents, ISE Ltd.

Kentaro was introduced to the opportunity of GSSG financing a friendly in Doha by a company registered in Singapore, BCS Ltd, which was paid a $2m introduction fee. That huge-looking figure for an introduction is said to be in line with market rates in the lucrative world of international football, and the owners of BCS are known football business people whose involvement apparently did not raise concerns. Kentaro sold the TV rights and sponsorship for the game, paying some of the TV rights, just under $300,000, by agreement to GSSG, which retained ticket income in Doha. Kentaro made its profit after the costs of organising the game itself and paying the travel and other costs of bringing the two teams and support staff over to Qatar.

Martin Signer, a lawyer at Swiss Mideast, confirmed to the Guardian that he was involved in organising the match on behalf of GSSG, which had its name as the prime sponsor. Signer said his firm researched the market rate for bringing to Doha the world-class Brazil and Argentina teams and their star players, and found it was in line with the costs presented by Kentaro. Lionel Messi scored the only goal in the game, which was intended to showcase Doha’s ability to host prestigious international football just before Fifa voted on whether the country could host the 2022 World Cup.

Signer said Swiss Mideast agreed the contracts and paid the money, Kentaro organised and delivered the match, and no other payments were made.

“We did help to organise this match together with GSSG,” Signer said. “We paid a market rate to Kentaro for the game. It was successful from our point of view.”

Despite the concerns raised about payments from the match, and speculation that they involved additional money from Qatar, Signer said Garcia never approached Swiss Mideast at all. “I do not know anything about any concerns stated over contractual arrangements or payments,” Signer said. “No investigators have been to see us, so far.”

The basis of the Swiss attorney general’s announced investigation was rather lost in the sensational news the same day, of senior Fifa officials arrested in Zurich and charged with racketeering offences by US prosecutors, with six defendants having pleaded guilty. The attorney general’s office, and Fifa, made it clear, though, that Fifa itself had made various criminal complaints relating to the 2018 and 2022 votes, based on Garcia’s report, and the investigation is following them up.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Lionel Messi takes the ball away from Brazil’s Lucas Leiva in Doha, Qatar. Photograph: Bernat Armangue/AP

Concerns about payments relating to the Argentina v Brazil friendly in Doha were included in the summary of Garcia’s report published in November by Hans Joachim-Eckert, the German judge who chairs Fifa’s ethics committee’s “adjudicatory” – decision-making –arm. Eckert said that according to Garcia’s report: “The financing of the event and the contractual structures in this regard raised, in part, concerns … in particular in relation to certain arrangements concerning payments intended for the Argentina Football Association.”

Eckert stated that: “The relevant arrangements were not connected to the Qatar 2022 bid.”

Garcia resigned from Fifa in December, after vehemently contesting Eckert’s summary. Eckert has rejected that criticism and maintained his document fairly summarised the Garcia report’s findings. Garcia has never identified which of his facts and conclusions he claims were omitted or wrongly edited, so it is not known if he argues they include Eckert’s summary of his findings relating to the Argentina v Brazil match. Garcia declined to respond to the Guardian’s questions about it this week.

Fifa said in November that it had referred to Swiss criminal authorities the various findings of wrongdoing by Garcia, which Eckert summarised as limited, and insufficient to compromise the “integrity” of the bidding process.

The evidence-gathering from Kentaro and investigation of the Argentina v Brazil friendly indicates that the Swiss investigation is indeed following the same lines of inquiry as Garcia, whose whole file and supporting documents, according to Fifa, have been handed over. It suggests that the focus is as summarised by Eckert, about money intended for the AFA. Kentaro is understood to have been presented by investigators with names of companies in Buenos Aires it did not recognise, which may have received money out of the fee intended for the AFA.

Grothe has emphasised that he and Kentaro co-operated fully and voluntarily with Garcia, and is doing so again with the Swiss attorney general’s investigation. He said he showed the prosecutors all the money flows, and is adamant the payments were normal for the friendly.

In the wake of the arrests and investigations announced a fortnight ago, the AFA said in a statement that “it supports and endorses the inquiries, sharing the concern of the football world about the transparency deserved by our beloved sport”.

The Swiss attorney general’s office declined to comment on its investigations, saying it is “currently analysing seized data and information. Internal discussion on options regarding the ongoing criminal proceedings will follow accordingly.”