Are there notable examples of FIFA-backed initiatives that promoted peace and how were they evaluated?
Executive summary
FIFA recently created and immediately awarded the new “FIFA Peace Prize — Football Unites the World,” presenting the inaugural medal at the 2026 World Cup draw on 5 December 2025 to U.S. President Donald Trump [1] [2]. Reporting shows FIFA framed the prize as an annual recognition of “exceptional and extraordinary actions for peace,” but news outlets highlight internal surprise at the prize’s rapid creation and questions about political motives and governance surrounding the selection [1] [3].
1. FIFA’s move: sport as peacemaker or political theater?
FIFA announced the Peace Prize as an annual award to honour individuals who “help unite people in peace” and pledged to present the first award at the World Cup draw in Washington on 5 December 2025 [1] [4]. FIFA President Gianni Infantino repeatedly framed football as a vehicle for dialogue and “a message of peace,” arguing the sport can “invest in happiness” even if it “cannot solve conflict” [5]. Those official statements present a classic sporting-normative argument: sport builds bridges and symbolic legitimacy [1].
2. The inaugural award: who got it, and how reporters reacted
The first FIFA Peace Prize was awarded to Donald Trump at the draw; FIFA said the award recognised his “exceptional and extraordinary actions to promote peace and unity” [2] [6]. Major outlets covered the ceremony, including video and photographs of Infantino presenting the medal onstage during the draw [7] [8]. Media reaction tracked beyond the optics: several outlets pointed to the timing and to Infantino’s political proximity to Trump as context for the choice [3] [6].
3. Questions about process and governance
Reporting indicates the award’s creation and announcement surprised some senior FIFA officials and was arranged quickly, which raised governance questions about how the prize and selection process were designed [3]. Investigations and commentary also flag that the person charged with designing future selection processes has controversy attached to him, a detail reported by sports watchdog journalism that suggests reputational risk for FIFA [9]. FIFA’s own press materials state the prize will be “bestowed on behalf of all football-loving people” — a broad claim that conflicts with reporting of internal surprise at the initiative’s rollout [1] [3].
4. Evaluation: what counts as evidence of ‘peace’ in these initiatives?
Available sources do not offer a formal, publicly disclosed evaluation framework for measuring “peace” outcomes tied to the prize; FIFA’s materials describe values (solidarity, respect, reconciliation) without publishing metrics or selection criteria beyond “unwavering commitment” and “special actions” [1]. News reporting raises the implicit standard in practice: selection appears to rest as much on high-profile diplomatic acts and political relationships as on independently audited peace impact [3] [6]. In short, there is no clear, published methodology for evaluating winners’ actual conflict-resolution impact in the available reporting [1] [3].
5. Competing interpretations in the press
Some coverage treats the prize as a genuine attempt to harness football’s soft power and to honour peacemaking efforts [4] [1]. Other outlets see it as politicized symbolism: the New York Times and others suggested Infantino’s personal alignment with Trump helped spur the prize’s sudden creation and award, implying political self-interest shaped the initiative [3] [6]. Sports watchdog reporting flagged reputational issues about who will run the prize’s selection process, reinforcing the critical view [9].
6. Historical precedents and limits in available reporting
Available sources do not mention previous FIFA-backed peace awards with the same institutional profile as this new prize; rather, they emphasise this prize as a new initiative timed to the 2026 World Cup draw [1] [10]. Coverage documents symbolic acts (presentation ceremonies, public statements) but lacks follow-up evaluation studies showing sustained conflict reduction or measurable social reconciliation attributable to FIFA actions [1] [3].
7. What to watch next
Future credibility will depend on transparency: whether FIFA publishes the prize’s selection criteria, an independent committee structure, conflict-of-interest disclosures, and measurable outcomes for laureates. Reporting already shows controversy over governance and the selection apparatus; subsequent reporting should be monitored for documentation of procedures, named committee members, and any post-award impact assessments or independent audits [3] [9].
Limitations: this analysis draws only on the provided reporting and FIFA’s press materials; available sources do not include a public, detailed scoring rubric or independent post-award evaluations of the Peace Prize’s impact [1] [3].