top of page

FIFA’s Toadying “Peace Prize”

  • Writer: Alexandra Addison-Wrage
    Alexandra Addison-Wrage
  • Dec 8
  • 2 min read
ISO blocks

FIFA’s decision to award its brand new “Peace Prize” to Donald Trump seemed less like a gesture toward global peace and unity and more a brazen exercise in pandering. The inaugural prize, which was created quietly, apparently without nominees, criteria, or any visible process, was handed out during the 2026 World Cup draw, with FIFA President Gianni Infantino hailing Trump for “extraordinary” actions for peace. It felt like Roman tribute.


 It was not the pageantry, but the hypocrisy, that makes the moment remarkable. For years, FIFA has defended its most controversial decisions, awarding tournaments to countries with criminalized homosexuality, muzzled press, or appalling migrant-worker conditions, by insisting it must “stay out of politics.” Asking host nations to meet basic human rights standards, we're told, would be to foray into the political. Expecting progress on women's rights, or protection for LGBTQ fans or journalists would be political. Yet somehow, manufacturing a peace prize and handing it to a sitting head of state during a globally televised event is apolitical?


 According to The Athletic, even FIFA’s own leadership structures were excluded. The 37-member Council, including all eight vice presidents, was not consulted about the creation of the award. The 211-member Congress did not vote on the prize, its rules, or the winner. Infantino and a smaller inner circle appear to have conceived of, approved, and presented the award entirely on their own; a governance black box inside an organization already known for its opacity. “Bestowed on behalf of all football-loving people from around the world,” FIFA said, although none of those people, nor their representatives within FIFA, was asked.


 This selective engagement with politics is not new. When Brazil’s stadia alcohol laws undermined Budweiser’s World Cup sponsorship, FIFA successfully pushed the government to change its legislation. So much for principled neutrality. Political pressure is unacceptable when it involves human rights, but entirely acceptable when it involves beer.



President and Founder, TRACE



!

Subscribe to BriberyMatters

Subscribe to receive the latest BriberyMatters blog posts straight to your inbox. Enter your email address below:

Thanks for subscribing!

bottom of page