The head of world football is now at the centre of a storm of his own making. A new complaint to FIFA’s powerful Ethics Committee accuses president Gianni Infantino of breaking one of the organisation’s most basic rules: stay out of politics.

At the heart of the case is a decision that shocked many around the game – the creation of a FIFA Peace Prize and its first winner: former U.S. president Donald Trump. What was sold as a moment of celebration has instead triggered questions about power, neutrality, and whether FIFA’s own boss believes the rules apply to him.

Who is challenging Infantino – and why now?

The complaint was filed by FairSquare, a non-profit group that focuses on global labour migration rights, political repression, and sport. This is not a group shouting from the sidelines. FairSquare has a track record of taking on football’s most powerful bodies, including past challenges over Saudi Arabia’s selection as 2034 World Cup host and the role of oil giant Aramco as a FIFA sponsor.

This time, they are going straight for the top. Their complaint, reported by outlets including SportsBusinessJournal, asks FIFA’s Ethics Committee to open a formal investigation into Infantino over what they describe as repeated breaches of the duty of political neutrality written into FIFA’s Code of Ethics.

According to those reports, FairSquare’s submission sets out four alleged breaches, all linked to what they call Infantino’s “public championing” of Donald Trump. The details of each breach are not all public, but the pattern – Infantino using his status to praise and promote a highly divisive political figure – is clear enough for the group to say the line has been crossed.

The complaint also goes a step further, asking how the FIFA Peace Prize came into existence in the first place, and whether the way it was introduced followed FIFA’s own procedural rules.

In their own words, FairSquare warns: “If Mr. Infantino acted unilaterally and without any statutory authority, this should be considered an egregious abuse of power.”

“How can fans trust FIFA’s rules if the president seems free to ignore them?”

FIFA’s political neutrality rule – and what’s at stake

For years, FIFA has tried to tell governments and politicians to keep their hands off football. National federations can be punished if their governments interfere. Teams can be sanctioned if political slogans or campaigns spill onto the pitch.

That stance is written into FIFA’s ethics rules. Article 15 of the FIFA Code of Ethics requires strict political neutrality from key officials, including the president. As USA TODAY’s Scooby Axson has noted, those ethics bylaws “require neutrality in all political matters,” and violations can carry a two-year ban from the sport.

So this is not a soft warning. If the Ethics Committee finds that Infantino broke the neutrality rule in a serious way, he could, in theory, face a suspension that would remove him from all football activity for up to two years. For a sitting FIFA president, that would be a seismic blow.

We are not at that point yet. So far, there is a complaint. FIFA’s communications team has been informed. The next move belongs to the Ethics Committee, which has the power either to quietly park the case, or to open a full, public investigation that would put Infantino under intense pressure.

The Trump peace prize that no one saw coming

The spark for this battle was a move that even some seasoned FIFA watchers struggled to take seriously: a newly created FIFA Peace Prize handed to Donald Trump.

Trump, of course, has long wanted a different peace prize – the Nobel – and never got it. Instead, he received this untested honour from world football’s governing body. It came with glowing praise from Infantino at a time when Trump’s political record and behaviour remained deeply controversial in the U.S. and abroad.

The reaction was brutal. French paper Le Monde, through writer Jerome Latta, called it “a moment so far beyond parody or satire that it was impossible to laugh.” Salon.com described how Infantino “showered Trump with meaningless praise,” labelling the prize “phony” and pointing to the sharp contrast between Trump’s actions and the idea of a peace award.

According to reports cited by SportsBusinessJournal, FairSquare’s complaint puts this episode at the centre of its case. It asks not just whether it was wise, but whether it was even legal inside FIFA’s own system to create and award such a prize, and to give it to a sitting or recent political leader known for divisive policies.

“A FIFA Peace Prize for Trump feels like a bad joke that somehow became official.”

From World Cup draw spectacle to ethics headache

The Trump peace prize did not happen in a vacuum. Infantino and Trump had already stood side by side in high-profile settings, including around the 2026 FIFA World Cup, which will be hosted by the United States, Canada and Mexico.

During the World Cup draw in Washington D.C., the pair appeared together in what some observers labelled a “spectacle for their own glorification.” It was another clear blending of football’s global stage with political theatre, with both men benefiting from the cameras and the symbolism.

On one level, FIFA presidents have always had to deal with heads of state. They need political support for tournaments, infrastructure and security. But there is a line between necessary diplomacy and open political endorsement. FairSquare’s complaint argues that Infantino has stepped over that line by repeatedly championing one politician in particular.

And that is where the neutrality rule becomes more than a vague principle. If FIFA tells players and federations to stay out of politics, but its president is seen to be boosting one of the world’s most divisive political figures, the organisation’s credibility takes a hit.

Why FairSquare’s challenge matters for FIFA’s future

FairSquare is not the first group to question FIFA’s governance, but it has built a reputation for serious, evidence-based challenges. It has previously raised alarms about:

• The selection of Saudi Arabia as host for the 2034 World Cup.
• The influence of Saudi oil company Aramco as a FIFA sponsor.
• Gaps in FIFA’s own governance and compliance processes.

This latest complaint fits that pattern. It is not just about one prize or one ceremony. It is about whether FIFA follows its own rulebook, especially at the very top.

The question is simple but powerful: if the president can push through a new award, use it to celebrate a political ally, and do so without clear approval from FIFA’s bodies, what does that say about checks and balances inside the organisation?

FairSquare’s warning that this would be an “egregious abuse of power” if done unilaterally is pointed. It is saying to FIFA’s Ethics Committee: if you care about the code, this is the moment to prove it.

“Either FIFA enforces neutrality on everyone, or the word ‘ethics’ is just window dressing.”

Can FIFA’s Ethics Committee really act against its own president?

On paper, yes. The Ethics Committee has the power to investigate and sanction any football official, including the president. In the past, it has banned high-profile figures for corruption and other misconduct.

In practice, the politics are much harder. Investigating a sitting president over alleged political bias and a controversial award to a former U.S. president would be a huge step. It would immediately become global news and would test how independent FIFA’s watchdogs really are.

Still, the rules are clear. Ethics officials must look at whether:

• Infantino’s public support of Trump, including the peace prize, broke the duty of neutrality.
• The FIFA Peace Prize was created and awarded in line with FIFA’s statutes and procedures.
• Any abuse of office or overreach took place in the process.

FIFA has been made aware of the complaint. Now, the football world waits to see whether it will stay silent or allow an open examination of the president’s actions.

Beyond one prize: a test of trust in world football

The anger over Trump’s FIFA Peace Prize goes beyond personal dislike or party politics. Many critics see it as another symbol of how far FIFA can drift from the values it claims to stand for.

When Le Monde calls the moment “beyond parody,” and Salon labels the award “phony,” they are not just mocking Trump. They are mocking FIFA for trying to dress up a political moment as a celebration of peace, at a time when the game is already battling questions over money, human rights, and fairness.

For fans, the issue is simple. They want to believe that when FIFA talks about ethics and neutrality, it means it. If the body that bans players for slogans on a shirt allows its own president to publicly favour a controversial leader without consequence, that belief crumbles.

The FairSquare complaint has turned the Trump peace prize from an awkward headline into a serious test case. If the Ethics Committee investigates and acts, it could signal a new era of accountability at the top of football. If it does nothing, it may confirm the suspicion that in Zurich’s glass towers, some people are still too powerful to touch.

Either way, the damage to FIFA’s image is already done. A prize that was meant to shout “peace” has instead whispered a very different message: in world football’s most powerful office, the lines between sport and politics are more blurred than ever.