How has FIFA publicly framed football's role in peacebuilding and diplomacy?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
FIFA has explicitly framed football as a tool for global unity and diplomacy by launching a “FIFA Peace Prize” to “reward individuals who have taken exceptional and extraordinary actions for peace,” tying the sport to the slogan “Football Unites the World” and presenting the inaugural prize at the 2026 World Cup draw on 5 December 2025 [1] [2]. FIFA president Gianni Infantino has repeatedly promoted football’s diplomatic role in public appearances, saying the sport can “promote unity” and presenting the award personally to U.S. President Donald Trump, a move FIFA characterises as advancing peace and unity [3] [4].
1. FIFA’s public framing: football as a peace and unity instrument
FIFA now frames the sport not just as competition but as a unifying, peacebuilding force: the new FIFA Peace Prize is explicitly intended to honour “individuals who help unite people in peace” and is positioned under the slogan “Football Unites the World,” a deliberate value statement linking the organisation’s identity to global social impact [1] [2].
2. High-profile staging: diplomacy performed at major events
FIFA chose the Final Draw for the 2026 World Cup — a major, highly televised diplomatic moment — to debut the prize, signalling that the organisation will use marquee events as platforms for peace messaging and public diplomacy [2] [1].
3. Leadership messaging: Infantino’s personal diplomacy
Gianni Infantino has actively advanced this framing, publicly praising actions he views as promoting peace and unity, presenting the Peace Prize himself, and linking FIFA’s initiatives to broader diplomatic encounters he has staged with world leaders — a pattern the organisation uses to personify football’s role in diplomacy [3] [4].
4. Case study: awarding the inaugural prize to Donald Trump
FIFA presented the inaugural prize to U.S. President Donald Trump at the Washington draw on 5 December 2025, with Infantino saying the award recognised “unwavering commitment to advancing peace and unity,” an explicit example of FIFA translating its rhetorical frame into a politically resonant act [5] [6] [4].
5. Supporters’ perspective: expanding football’s soft power
Supporters and some FIFA communications argue the prize and related events harness football’s global reach — “more than 5 billion fans” and massive financial clout cited by outlets — to spotlight peacebuilders and build bridges across states and communities, advancing a soft-power role for the sport [1] [7].
6. Critics’ viewpoint: political entanglement and opaque processes
Critics and investigative reporting question whether the move blurs sport and politics: media coverage highlights concerns about the selection process’s opacity, Infantino’s close relationship with the awardee, and the potential for FIFA to entangle itself in geopolitical controversies rather than neutral peace promotion [5] [8] [7].
7. Institutional context: new committees and governance questions
Reporting notes that FIFA’s creation of the prize coincided with new internal committees (a “social responsibility” committee) and that FIFA has not disclosed clear selection criteria or a transparent process, raising governance questions about how the organisation intends to legitimize its diplomatic claims [5] [2].
8. Broader diplomatic ecosystem: sports diplomacy in practice
External actors — think tanks and diplomatic forums — treat major tournaments as diplomatic opportunities, and the FIFA prize slots into that ecosystem by formalising an award-based channel for recognition; analysts at institutions such as the Atlantic Council discuss how sporting events create “opportunities” for diplomacy and community engagement [9] [7].
9. Consequences: reputational upside and downside
FIFA’s rhetoric positions football as an instrument of unity and can yield reputational gains by associating the sport with peace; simultaneously, awarding politically polarizing figures risks undermining that credibility and attracting scrutiny over motives, timing and influence [7] [5] [10].
10. What reporting does not (yet) say
Available sources do not mention detailed, independently verifiable selection criteria, nor do they provide a full account of the internal deliberations that led to the inaugural choice; investigative follow-up and documentary evidence of the prize’s governance remain absent in current reporting [5] [2].
Limitations: this analysis relies solely on the cited reporting, which documents FIFA’s public rhetoric, the creation and debut of the Peace Prize, Infantino’s role, and the contested reaction to the award to President Trump [1] [2] [5] [4]. Competing perspectives — FIFA’s stated aims versus media and civil society skepticism — are documented above and reflect present public debate [5] [7] [11].