After Donald Trump failed to win the Nobel Peace Prize, and in one of the most astonishing and controversial moments in football history, the International Federation of Association Football (FIFA) awarded the first-ever “FIFA Peace Prize” to Donald Trump, the President of the United States, at the 2026 World Cup draw ceremony held at the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C.
The event sparked a wave of mockery, anger, and shock across the world within just a few hours. The prize had no precedent, and even its name was introduced for the first time during the ceremony. It had no clear criteria, no selection or evaluation process, and according to some senior FIFA officials, it had not even been created with the knowledge or approval of the FIFA Council. For this reason, many saw it not as a sporting honor but as a new symbol of FIFA’s transformation into a political tool serving the White House.
The Sudden creation of an unknown prize
At the beginning of the ceremony, a video with an exaggerated tone announced that the “FIFA Peace Prize” would be awarded annually to someone with “exceptional achievements” in the field of peace. Moments later, FIFA President Gianni Infantino invited Trump onstage and enthusiastically handed him a medal that, in his own words, Trump “could wear anywhere he wanted.”
Infantino introduced Trump as the representative of “five billion football fans” and said the US president was fully deserving of such an honor. Trump, smiling, put the medal around his neck and repeated his old claims about ending “eight wars” and “saving millions of lives.” But for many, the unbelievable part was not Trump’s comments; it was the fact that a prize with no structure, no criteria, and no administrative transparency had been created out of nowhere and handed to a president known not for peace but for military operations and international tensions.
Global outrage: From mockery to shock
The global reaction was almost immediate, harsh, and widespread. Social media was flooded with critical comments, with users calling the move a “political comedy,” “an insult to the concept of peace,” and “political bribery.” Many wrote that FIFA had “invented a prize” to keep Trump satisfied, and some derided it as “making candy for a child.”
Even well-known media figures and international activists described the prize as a tool to whitewash Trump’s image and as yet another sign of FIFA’s complete politicization. The intensity of reactions was so great that the prize’s name became one of the most repeated global topics within hours. Many cited the move as an example of hypocrisy by an organization that always claims to be “free from politics.”
A clear violation of FIFA’s political neutrality rules
For years, FIFA had fined players simply for writing a sentence about the Gaza war or expressing sympathy for victims of conflict. Yet now, the same organization had awarded a “peace” prize to a president who had ordered naval attacks, issued military threats against Iran, offered unconditional support to Israel in the Gaza war, and whose harsh immigration policies had been repeatedly condemned by human rights bodies. Many analysts saw this behavior as a sign of double standards: where players are banned from the slightest political gesture while FIFA’s top officials themselves engage in politics at the highest level.
The political ties between Trump and Infantino
Infantino’s close relationship with Trump has been a topic of media discussion for years. His frequent presence at US political events, multiple meetings with Trump at the White House, and his open support for the idea of awarding Trump a Nobel Peace Prize have all painted a picture of political alignment between the two—now made clearer by this award.
Some insiders at FIFA have said that ever since Trump became frustrated with not receiving the Nobel Prize, there has been pressure to create an alternative award and that Infantino had been seeking a way to “compensate” for that disappointment. Their relationship drew even more attention in recent months when, during the Club World Cup final, Trump—despite having no official role—stood in the middle of the championship celebration and Infantino handed him an extra medal as a “souvenir.”
Human rights criticism and international repercussions
The reactions were not limited to social media. Human rights activists, researchers, and international organizations described the award as “political whitewashing” and “an abuse of the concept of peace.”
A former UN official called the prize absolute trivialization and said that after FIFA’s silence on Israel’s atrocities, it was now trying to exonerate Trump by creating a fake prize.
Many stressed that Trump’s actions—from naval attacks in the Caribbean to military directives on Iran and anti-immigration policies—had nothing to do with peace, and that choosing him sent only one message: FIFA is willing to abandon its so-called principles to maintain its political ties with the US government.
The collapse of FIFA’s last claims to neutrality
FIFA has long been weighed down by corruption cases, bribery scandals, and state influence. Infantino’s latest move dealt another blow to the organization’s legitimacy. Analysts say FIFA has now drifted far from the basic principles on which it was founded, and awarding such a prize shows that the slogan “football without politics” has become meaningless and purely promotional. Some even believe the Peace Prize is not a tool for recognition but an effort to solidify political relations and secure Washington’s approval, as hosting the 2026 World Cup and a large part of FIFA’s financial projects are directly or indirectly dependent on cooperation with the US government.
Conclusion
The FIFA Peace Prize was intended to symbolize “the unifying power of football,” but in reality, it became a clear display of FIFA’s political maneuvering and an attempt to whitewash the image of a president whose name is tied not to peace but to military threats and international crises. The prize not only failed to give Trump credibility but also placed FIFA at the center of a new scandal—one that once again shows how an organization that fines players for a humanitarian slogan can itself become a tool for the political agendas of the powerful. Ultimately, the prize is less a symbol of peace and more a symbol of political exploitation of sport and the degradation of the concept of peace in today’s politicized world.
MNA/6680292
Your Comment