By: Nana Karikari, Senior Global Affairs Correspondent
FIFA President Gianni Infantino faces continuing formal calls for an ethics investigation. The calls follow his public endorsement of United States President Donald Trump’s political program. This action severely tests FIFA’s political neutrality rules and raises deep anxiety over the integrity of the 2026 World Cup. The controversy is exacerbated by further political ties and the introduction of a new FIFA Peace Prize.
At the America Business Forum in Miami, the FIFA President’s public praise for the US leader’s agenda—saying the program “looks pretty good” and urging, “I think we should all support what he’s doing”—drew immediate and widespread criticism. This clear endorsement of a political platform places Infantino on a collision course with the organization’s own ethical statutes.
Ethics and Political Patronage: No Investigation Confirmed
The core controversy is the direct contradiction between Infantino’s remarks and FIFA’s foundational ethical principles. Former FIFA Governance Committee Chairman Miguel Maduro formally cited Article 15 of the FIFA Code of Ethics, which mandates strict political neutrality for officials, asserting that Infantino’s support is a “clear violation.” Maduro argued that Infantino’s statement went beyond recognizing the election’s legitimacy to actively endorsing a political program and urging public support. Despite these demands for a probe, the FIFA Ethics Committee has maintained public silence
and has not confirmed the opening of a preliminary investigation into the alleged breach.
Infantino’s defense is rooted in respecting the democratic process: “I am not American, but as far as I understand, President Donald Trump was elected… He is just implementing what he said he would do.” Critics counter that while respecting electoral results is standard, arguing that “we should all support what he’s doing” constitutes political advocacy and breaches the neutrality statute.
This alignment has drawn public rebuke, including from UEFA, the European governing body, which previously criticized Infantino’s conduct for accommodating what appeared to be “private political interests.” The President’s actions also directly contradict his own recent rhetoric, where he emphasized the need to “protect the political neutrality of sport” in a world of “extreme aggression and division.”
Pattern of Closeness and Deepening Discontent
Infantino’s endorsement is not an isolated event but the latest manifestation of a well-documented, close friendship with the US leader, cultivated through years of White House visits and public appearances, including attending the recent inauguration. Infantino has consistently referred to the US leader as “my great friend” and “phenomenal.” His rationale—that the leader “actually says what many people think as well, but maybe don’t dare to say”—fails to mitigate the inherent conflict of interest imposed by FIFA’s rules.
The global player union, FIFPRO, has also voiced scathing criticism against Infantino’s leadership, condemning his focus on profitability and autocratic style, branding him “the man who thinks he’s god” for creating a “fiction created by FIFA… without dialogue, sensitivity, and respect.” This deep-seated discontent over Infantino’s style and priorities extends far beyond political governance.
The Peace Prize and Sovereignty Risk
The political entanglement is escalating with the announcement of the “FIFA Peace Prize – Football Unites the World,” a new annual award. Infantino confirmed the prize will be presented for the first time at the World Cup Final Draw on December 5 in
Washington, DC, and has refused to rule out the US leader as the inaugural recipient. This potential awarding of a new, high-profile FIFA honor to his endorsed political ally is widely interpreted as a powerful confirmation of their political alliance, further eroding the mandated principle of political neutrality.
Even more concerning is the potential impact on host nation sovereignty. The US leader has publicly suggested Infantino would support moving World Cup games from host cities if he deemed security conditions unsafe: “I would call Gianni, the head of Fifa… and I would say, let’s move it to another location. And he would do that.”
This threat was met with a clear public pushback from within FIFA’s hierarchy. Victor Montagliani, the Canadian FIFA vice president and CONCACAF president, strongly refuted the claim, asserting, “It’s FIFA’s tournament, FIFA’s jurisdiction, FIFA makes those decisions,” adding a sharp rebuttal: “Football is bigger than any individual and bigger than any country.” The FIFA President’s political allegiance now carries an unprecedented potential for direct interference, forcing other top officials to issue public reminders of the organization’s ultimate authority.
Global Impact on World Cup Integrity
The timing of this controversy is acutely sensitive with the FIFA World Cup 2026 approaching. The tournament’s success relies on the image of global unity, and a cloud of political partiality over FIFA’s leadership could lead to protests and diminish the sense of shared celebration among nations and fans opposed to the endorsed political figure’s agenda.
The issue has created friction at the local level, with Boston Mayor Michelle Wu directly criticizing Donald Trump’s comments questioning her city’s safety. Norwegian national team coach Ståle Solbakken, reflecting on the distraction, stated, “When the head of the sport creates political news, it distracts from the game itself, and that is a failure of leadership.” FIFA must immediately address this breach of neutrality to protect the unifying spirit of its pinnacle tournament and ensure its leader is seen as a steward for all 211 member associations, not a political surrogate.
