The announcement of FIFA’s new peace award, which would be given annually to individuals “who unite people through their commitment to peace,” has sparked strong reactions in the world of sports and politics. As the first laureate is awaited, who will be announced tomorrow during the official draw for the 2026 World Cup in Washington, questions about the motives of FIFA president Gianni Infantino are growing louder.
Suspicious timing: Trump didn’t get the Nobel Prize, Infantino launched an “alternative”
The broader public began reacting as soon as the award was announced. The message came at a sensitive political moment: United States (U.S.) President Donald Trump was reportedly frustrated for not receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, and Infantino announced FIFA’s award just a few days before a planned meeting with Trump in Miami.
Infantino presented the new award in an official statement and on his Instagram account, saying it would be dedicated to “those who tirelessly work to unite the world.” However, the lack of clear criteria and transparency immediately opened the door to speculation: Is the award being created with a predetermined winner in mind?
Another violation of neutrality: Infantino and political leaders
Infantino has previously drawn criticism for allegedly violating FIFA’s rules on political neutrality. During an unusual appearance alongside his “friend” Trump at a “peace summit on Gaza” in Egypt, Infantino said: “I think we should all support what he is doing, it seems pretty good.”
In such an atmosphere, the lack of information about the selection process for the first peace award winner caused additional concern among experts and activists.
According to media reports, the award is already being viewed within FIFA as equivalent to UEFA’s presidential award, implying that Infantino will have a decisive role in choosing the recipient.
Even more worrying is the fact that a key role in designing the selection process belongs to FIFA’s new commission for “social responsibility.” Although it is supposed to create a transparent procedure, the commission will not even meet before the first winner is announced.
Who leads the commission? A businessman with a questionable past
The commission is chaired by Zaw Zaw, long-time president of the Myanmar Football Federation, a businessman who was under U.S. and European sanctions between 2009 and 2016 for ties to the military regime.
In 2009, the U.S. State Department described Zaw Zaw as a “crony” of the brutal military junta. Diplomatic cables also revealed that he financed the club Delta United, for which the grandson of General Than Shwe, a dictator accused of severe human rights violations: torture, rape, killings, and disappearances, allegedly played.
In a 2013 interview, Zaw Zaw claimed that “his only sin was becoming wealthy in a poor country.”
Nick McGeehan of the organization FairSquare, which published a critical report on FIFA last year, believes the way the award was announced points to deeper problems in the organization. “This looks like a process being reverse-engineered to deliver the result Infantino wants.”
McGeehan argues that Infantino is not the cause of the problem, but rather a symptom of a system still deeply rooted in patronage networks.
The 2016 reforms failed?
In 2016, FIFA adopted a reform package in response to one of the biggest scandals in the history of sports, when Swiss police arrested high officials on corruption charges brought by the U.S. Department of Justice. Although no one suggests corruption on that scale today, McGeehan says many reforms remained only on paper: the number of FIFA committees increased instead of decreasing, the power of the organization’s leadership remains enormous, patronage networks still dominate, and member associations compete for funds and positions while the center of power seeks political support in return. FairSquare believes such a model encourages unethical behavior. FIFA calls their findings “unfair.”
Growing closeness with Trump and Mohammed bin Salman
According to McGeehan, Infantino is personally fascinated by political leaders like Trump and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, whose country will host the 2034 World Cup. The reasons for this lie not only in personal affinities but also in financial interests. “The only period when FIFA earns money is the World Cup year. To ensure maximum profit, the president must be close to the host, who covers all expenses, while FIFA takes all the profit.”
In other words, political closeness becomes a key part of the business model.
Amnesty: “Human Rights Are Always Secondary”
Stephen Cockburn of Amnesty International says FIFA formally has processes to protect human rights, but in practice, priorities still come down to financial interest, power, and support from political allies.
In its response, FIFA said: “Only FIFA can be criticized for wanting to reward those who work for peace in the world.” The organization believes it should be praised instead of criticized because it “wants to make the world a better place.”
