Broccoli Sports

Tag: Gianni Infantino

  • FIFA’s 2026 World Cup Ticket Fiasco

    FIFA’s 2026 World Cup Ticket Fiasco

    Key Takeaways(TL;DR):

    • Fan groups say FIFA’s 2026 World Cup ticket prices are a “monumental betrayal” and “extortionate,” warning loyal supporters are being priced out.
    • National federation lists show group tickets from US$180‑$700 and World Cup final seats up to US$8,680 for fan allocations.
    • Following one team from group stage to final can cost around €6,900 / US$8,000+, up to five to seven times higher than Qatar 2022.
    • General public tickets start from US$60 for group games to US$6,730 for the final, but FIFA’s new dynamic pricing means costs can rise quickly.
    • No concessions or protections are mentioned for young, low-income, or long-time fans, and some are already rethinking travel plans.
    • FIFA has not commented on the backlash, as resale prices for the 2026 World Cup final are already above US$11,000.

    The World Cup has always been sold as the people’s tournament. A festival where fans from every corner of the planet can come together, swap shirts, share songs, and watch the very best in football. But with the latest ticket prices for the 2026 World Cup in the United States, Canada, and Mexico, many supporters feel that dream is being ripped away in real time.

    Major fan organisations across Europe are accusing FIFA of turning the world’s biggest football event into a playground only the rich can afford. The language they are using is not soft. It is angry, direct, and desperate.

    Football Supporters Europe (FSE), one of the most influential fan groups on the continent, has called FIFA’s prices for 2026 a “monumental betrayal” of what the World Cup is meant to be. Others have gone further, describing the ticketing policy as “extortionate” and “laughable.”

    How much will 2026 World Cup tickets actually cost?

    In the last 48 hours, national football federations such as Germany’s and England’s have begun to send early price lists to their fan bases. These allocations, known as participant member association (PMA) tickets, are reserved mainly for loyal supporters who follow their national team.

    For Germany, the prices look like this:

    • Group stage: US$180‑$700 per ticket
    • World Cup final: from US$4,185 up to a staggering US$8,680

    Remember, this is for the eight percent of tickets set aside for national associations and their core supporters. These are the people who travel every cycle, who sing through qualifiers in the rain, who turn up to friendlies when no one else cares. They are being told that to be in the stadium for the final, they may need to find close to US$9,000 for a single seat.

    For fans trying to follow their team all the way from the group stage to the final, the numbers get even more brutal. FSE says that a full tournament path via PMA allocation will cost up to €6,900 (about US$8,111). For England fans, one estimate puts it around US$7,020 (£5,228).

    That is around five to seven times more than what similar routes cost at the 2022 World Cup in Qatar. Some estimates using UK conversions suggest total costs for all possible games could stretch into the £5,000‑£12,000+ range once different categories and potential mark-ups are factored in.

    “How is a normal family supposed to afford even one game, never mind a whole World Cup journey?”

    Dynamic pricing and a confusing ticket landscape

    The other major twist for 2026 is FIFA’s decision to bring in dynamic pricing for the first time at a World Cup. That term might sound technical, but it is simple: prices move up and down like airline tickets, depending on demand.

    For general public sales, FIFA originally advertised tickets starting at around US$60 for group games, rising to US$6,730 for World Cup final seats. But because of dynamic pricing, these numbers are not fixed. They can increase when demand spikes, leaving fans unsure what they will end up paying.

    We are already seeing how fast things can escalate. On the secondary resale market, some tickets for the 2026 World Cup final are already going for more than US$11,000. This is before a ball has even been kicked.

    Even outside the European powerhouses, the costs are climbing. New Zealand fans hoping to follow the All Whites in the group stage are being told to expect prices of around US$140‑$500 per game. That is a heavy hit for supporters travelling halfway around the world.

    Fan groups: from excitement to outrage

    The reaction from organised supporters has been swift and fierce. Football Supporters Europe did not mince its words, issuing a public statement that accused FIFA of turning its back on the people who give the World Cup its soul.

    They wrote that this pricing policy is a “monumental betrayal of the tradition of the World Cup, ignoring the contribution of supporters to the spectacle it is.” In their view, FIFA is ready to cash in on the brand while forgetting the living, breathing fan culture that makes the tournament more than just a TV show.

    They also highlighted the full path ticket for loyal followers – up to €6,900 – pointing out that this is five times more than what many fans paid in Qatar just three years ago. For a lot of people, wages have not gone up at anywhere near that speed.

    England fan groups have been just as blunt. The England Fans’ Embassy, part of the Football Supporters’ Association, labelled the pricing policy “laughable.” Free Lions, another long-standing England supporters’ group, warned:

    “Shocking prices, above and beyond… This can’t be allowed to happen. Match-goers across the world deserve protection from these rip-off prices.”

    “If FIFA keeps this up, the stands will be full of sponsors, not supporters.”

    No concessions, no protection, and a silent FIFA

    One detail that has hit fans hard is what isn’t in the documents. There is no sign of concessions for children, young fans, or low-income supporters. There is nothing for the long-time loyal followers who travel home and away, qualifying after qualifying, cycle after cycle.

    For many families, even a single game now looks out of reach. For hardcore fans hoping to follow their team across North America, it is not just expensive – it is almost impossible. Some have already told their groups that they are thinking about giving up on travelling in 2026, even if they were in Qatar or Russia before.

    Making things worse, FIFA has so far said nothing in response to the backlash. As of December 12, 2025, there has been no public comment from the organisation addressing the anger or explaining whether any changes could still be made.

    With prices circulating from national federations since Thursday and Friday (December 11‑12), fan groups are demanding answers. Instead, they are met with silence.

    How did we get here? From 1994 to Qatar 2022 to 2026

    To understand why these numbers feel so shocking, it helps to look back.

    At the 1994 World Cup, also held in the United States, ticket prices ranged roughly from US$25 to US$475. That tournament was famous for packed stadiums and is still held up by FIFA as a success story. The original bid for the 2026 World Cup even promised US$21 seats as a way to keep the event open to all.

    Fast forward to Qatar 2022, and the standard tickets for games there ranged from about US$70 to US$1,600. Those prices were already high for many fans, but still broadly within reach for some, especially if they saved over years.

    Now we are looking at World Cup final tickets for loyal supporters going as high as US$8,680, and full tournament journeys jumping up several times compared to just one World Cup ago. That isn’t a small step. It is a giant leap into a new, more exclusive era.

    “The World Cup used to be a dream trip. Now it feels like a luxury product.”

    What is really at stake for the 2026 World Cup?

    This is not only a story about money. It is a story about what kind of World Cup FIFA wants the world to see.

    On paper, 2026 is supposed to be the most inclusive World Cup ever: more teams, more host cities across three countries, more chances to watch your nation on the biggest stage. Instead, many loyal fans feel locked out before the tournament has even begun.

    There is also a deeper risk for FIFA. The atmosphere inside World Cup stadiums does not come from hospitality lounges or corporate clients. It comes from the noisy, colourful groups who travel miles, sleep on couches, and sing from the first minute to the last. Price them out, and you risk turning the World Cup into a quieter, flatter, less authentic event.

    Fan groups are not just complaining for the sake of it. They are warning FIFA that if this trend continues, the World Cup will move further and further away from ordinary supporters. For a sport that prides itself on being global and accessible, that is a dangerous direction.

    What happens next?

    So far, the ball is in FIFA’s court. Fan groups have raised the alarm, national federations have shared the prices, and supporters across the world are doing the maths and feeling shut out.

    There are clear questions that need answers:

    • Will FIFA review and lower prices for certain categories?
    • Can there be real concessions for young and low-income fans?
    • Will dynamic pricing be reined in so supporters know what they are facing up front?

    For now, what we know is simple: the price lists are real, the anger is real, and the risk to the World Cup’s identity is real too.

    If FIFA wants 2026 to be remembered as a new high point for the global game, it may need to decide whether it values record ticket revenue more than the people who give football its voice, colour, and heart.

  • FIFA chief Infantino faces ethics storm over Trump peace prize

    FIFA chief Infantino faces ethics storm over Trump peace prize

    Key Takeaways(TL;DR):

    • FairSquare has filed an official complaint to FIFA’s Ethics Committee, accusing president Gianni Infantino of breaking FIFA’s rule of political neutrality.
    • The complaint focuses on Infantino’s public support of Donald Trump and the decision to give Trump the inaugural FIFA Peace Prize.
    • FairSquare says Infantino may have abused his power if he created and handed out the FIFA Peace Prize without proper approval.
    • FIFA’s ethics rules demand neutrality in political matters, and any breach can lead to a two-year ban from football activities.
    • The Trump peace prize has been slammed as “phony” and “beyond parody,” fueling wider anger over FIFA’s governance and credibility.
    • The case could become a major test of whether FIFA is serious about its own ethics code and political neutrality.

    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.