Is FIFA Still Neutral If the World Cup Becomes a Political Amplifier ?

A Wider Look at Donald Trump’s Peace Award and FIFA’s Struggle With Political Neutrality

Football has long portrayed itself as an arena that surpasses political boundaries. It is a sport noted for its integrity over the world and for being an effective instrument for promoting peace, solidarity, and social development, serving as a "universal language". The sport even has its own national day, "World Football Day," which is officially acknowledged by the United Nations on May 25th to highlight the sport's global impact on peace and development. FIFA has been at the center of promoting conflict resolution and peace with its "Football United the World" campaign and efforts. The claim, however, becomes more difficult to maintain when football's worldwide platforms are used for political signaling and to stress views and politics, functioning as a powerful high-visibility platform for soft power, propaganda, and social control.

On December 5th, the day of the 2026 World Cup draw in Washington, FIFA President Gianni Infantino presented Trump with the inaugural "FIFA Peace Prize". FIFA's decision to award a peace-related distinction to Donald Trump highlights the tensions surrounding the organization's political involvement. In November, the world's football governing body stated that the FIFA Peace Prize would be introduced in 2025, recognizing the "enormous efforts of those individuals who unite people, bringing hope for future generations". What matters is not the individual prize itself, but what it suggests about FIFA's changing role. Some suspected that Trump's kidnapping of Venezuelan leader Maduro, which occurred just weeks later, caused consideration in FIFA's headquarters, but not even two weeks later, FIFA maintains its position and claims that it has no plans to withdraw its new Peace Award.

FIFA’s Neutrality: Principle and Practice

FIFA officially portrays itself as a politically neutral organization that will not interfere in state matters. The institution strictly prohibits government interference in the internal affairs of its member associations (national football associations). If a government interferes with a national organization (for example, terminating a football federation's leadership), FIFA has the authority to suspend countries from international competitions. For example, Haiti and Iran have been banned from participation in the upcoming FIFA 2026 World Cup due to government intervention and regional instability. This notion has always served as the basis for FIFA's global legitimacy. The body's neutrality ensures that football is a safe place for all athletes, teams, and supporters, regardless of ethnic or religious background. The fact that it has 211 member associations increases the universal reach it encourages and because it is played all over the world, the "neutral" platforms enable the organization to promote peace on all continents. By respecting all of these principles that preserve FIFA's political neutrality, the institution ensures that its autonomy as a Sport Governing Body is not undermined by states or global issues.

FIFA's political neutrality extends far beyond its rule book and formal statutory laws, to a complicated and much criticized framework of institutional conduct. While FIFA's statutes state that the organization is "neutral in matters of politics and religion," in practice, this "neutrality" is used to protect and defend financial interests, institutional power, and the management of ties with governments. FIFA's neutrality is not applied consistently, but rather with a sense of arbitrary and selective enforcement. Critics argue that the institution responds quickly in some cases, like as banning Russia from any FIFA tournament following its invasion of Ukraine, but remains blind and inactive in others. This illustrates that decisions are sometimes too political for FIFA to make, driven by pressures from important members who perceive something beneficial and advantageous in doing so in their separate political universes, rather than following universal principles. The institution frequently overlooks important human rights issues in host countries, such as Russia and Qatar during the 2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cups, both of which have been accused of many human rights violations and other political concerns. Furthermore, the 2034 FIFA World Cup will be hosted by Saudi Arabia, another country heavily accused of human rights violations and strict national rules against women, reflecting FIFA's continuing selective avoidance of political engagement with certain countries, prioritizing the "smooth running of the competition" over ethical or political concerns.

While FIFA prohibits government intervention in national football associations, its leadership has been accused of favoring specific political interests, questioning its neutrality. Despite criticism of Saudi Arabia's human rights record, FIFA's support for their World Cup ambitions has raised worries. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have consistently warned about Saudi Arabia's structural difficulties, including limits on freedom of expression, women's rights, mass executions, and exploitation of migrant workers. Critics claim that FIFA's support for the candidacy risks enabling "sportswashing," in which significant sporting events are exploited to boost a country's worldwide image while diverting attention away from ongoing atrocities. By proceeding despite established risks and the lack of enforceable promises to prevent violations, FIFA is accused of undermining its own code of ethics, which requires impartiality and respect for human rights, as well as exposing itself to moral responsibility for potential abuses in the leading up to the tournament.

The Trump Peace Award as a Political Signal

FIFA's decision to link itself with a narrative of "peace" in connection to a current political figure was a significant shift. Historically, FIFA has maintained a public stance of political neutrality, frequently fining players or associations who promote political issues. The decision to directly link with a specific political leader's narrative of "peace" sparked criticism, with some claiming the change was intended to align with the US government ahead of the 2026 World Cup, rather than expressing real humanitarian neutrality. The prize was given amid widespread criticism of Trump's policies Following the award, reports suggested "deep embarrassment" among some FIFA executives over the decision, particularly in light of later US actions, including threats to annex Greenland and military action in Venezuela, which prompted calls for a tournament boycott.

Following Trump gets the peace prize, senior FIFA executives are becoming increasingly embarrassed. Since then, the United States has conducted airstrikes over Venezuela, capturing the president and his wife, Nicolás Maduro and Cilia Flores, and imprisoning them in the United States. Trump has also threatened to invade Groenland, which is part of Danish territory. During Trump's acceptance speech, there was an air of unease within FIFA, but the organization chose not to reveal any details about the selection process. A high-ranking FIFA official recognized that staging the FIFA World Cup in the United States would be a "very delicate" and "difficult" period, given the country's recent geopolitical decisions and declarations. This means that, from December 2025, FIFA has formally shifted its public stance from general and symbolic acknowledgment of peace to active political endorsement of a head of state by awarding the inaugural FIFA Peace Prize "Football Unites the World" to US President Donald Trump.

A Question of Neutrality

Football can no longer be fully separated from politics. The scale and visibility of the World Cup mean that every symbolic gesture made under its banner carries political weight. As the governing body of the game, FIFA cannot ignore the fact that its decisions, recognitions, and public endorsements are interpreted far beyond the sporting sphere. Neutrality today is not defined by silence alone, but by how carefully power and symbolism are exercised.

FIFA entered a space it had long claimed to avoid by recognizing Donald Trump for his contributions to peace. Whether intended or not, such gestures carry the risk of turning the World Cup into a political amplifier rather than a neutral platform. If FIFA continues on this route, it will have to decide where the true limits of neutrality are, or admit that its position in global football has fundamentally changed.