1. The Dilemma: Soccer or Politics?

The 2026 World Cup began long before the opening match. If one had to assign it an inaugural date, December 5, 2025, would be a plausible choice. On that day, FIFA presented Donald Trump with the first edition of an award it had itself created: the FIFA Peace Prize.[1]

The episode had an immediate precedent. Trump had repeatedly expressed his desire to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. In October 2025, the Norwegian Nobel Committee decided to award it to María Corina Machado—a choice that was itself open to question, given the Venezuelan opposition leader’s political record and her positions regarding the Israeli government. Two months later, Gianni Infantino presented Trump with an alternative award during the World Cup draw.

The decision did not result from a public procedure. No candidates, comparative criteria, deliberations, or independent evaluation process were disclosed. FIFA created the prize, and its president bestowed it upon the president of the principal host country. Infantino’s conduct was challenged by civil society organizations, national federations, and members of the European Parliament, who called for an investigation into whether it violated the political neutrality required by FIFA’s own regulations.[2]

The principal question is not whether Trump deserved a peace prize. To frame the debate in those terms would be to accept too quickly the moral authority FIFA decided to confer upon itself. The problem comes earlier: a sports organization converted its institutional authority into the power to confer moral legitimacy upon a head of government.

FIFA did not merely express an opinion. It created an honor, organized a ceremony, and used one of the World Cup’s central events to confer public recognition upon the president of the United States. It placed the symbolic resources of global soccer at the service of an operation of political legitimation.

The gesture anticipated the general structure of the tournament.

Continue reading →