In December 2025, FIFA, led by President Gianni Infantino, sparked a global controversy by awarding the inaugural FIFA Peace Prize to sitting U.S. President Donald Trump at the World Cup draw in Washington, D.C. The move, framed by FIFA as a gesture toward diplomacy, was met with an immediate wave of criticism from ethics watchdogs, rights groups, and international media who argued it breached FIFA’s neutrality rules and risked turning football into a stage for political theatre.
Ethics complaints quickly followed. FairSquare, a London-based human rights nonprofit, filed formal requests for investigations into Infantino’s alleged breaches of FIFA’s statutory duty to be politically neutral. Critics argued that giving a prize to a polarising political figure with a controversial human rights record undermined the federation’s stated commitment to neutrality and governance standards. FIFA, for its part, said its ethics committee does not comment on potential ongoing cases and could not confirm receipt of the complaint.
The controversy centers on several core issues. First is the duty of neutrality embedded in FIFA’s ethics codes, which critics say was violated by applauding or honouring a political leader whose tenure has included harsh immigration policies and domestic Crackdowns. Second is governance and process: observers noted the lack of publicly shared criteria, shortlist, jury, or transparent process for selecting a Peace Prize recipient, fueling suspicions that the prize may have been created for Trump rather than through a rigorous, rules-based selection.
Proponents of the prize argued that the gesture could serve as a diplomatic tool, highlighting sport as a bridge in a divided world and aligning FIFA with broader geopolitical aims ahead of the 2026 World Cup co-hosted by the United States, Canada, and Mexico. The prize came as global discussion intensifies about the role of sport in diplomacy and the credibility of organisations that wield such soft power.
The ethical storm is compounded by Infantino’s public expressions of support for Trump, including suggestions that the U.S. president deserved the Nobel Peace Prize, a claim Trump ultimately did not win. Critics say such statements blur the lines between sport and partisan politics and risk normalising political endorsement within a global sporting institution.
The broader context matters too. FIFA’s 2026 World Cup in North America is expected to generate substantial revenue, amplifying scrutiny of how the organisation uses its platform. As rights groups and watchdogs call for accountability, the question remains: can FIFA maintain neutrality while engaging in symbolic acts that lean toward political endorsement?
Where does this leave FIFA’s reputation? For many observers, the answer is troubling: the organisation risks appearing to trade on moral authority to win political legitimacy or prestige, a move some describe as “sportswashing” by another name. Others insist that diplomacy and peaceful engagement are valid aims of international sport and should be embraced with clear, transparent processes.
What happens next remains to be seen. FIFA’s ethics investigators are expected to determine whether the peace prize violated neutrality rules, and how the federation will respond to renewed calls for governance reform and more explicit criteria for any future awards.
Disclosure: We may earn a commission when you make a purchase through the ads.