

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
If a government can pressure a global sports institution into legitimizing its leader under the banner of peace, then global civil society must be capable of compelling that same institution to correct its course.
In December, US President Donald Trump was awarded FIFA’s newly created “FIFA Peace Prize–Football Unites the World” by FIFA President Gianni Infantino. The decision immediately sparked disbelief and criticism worldwide, raising a fundamental question: What does FIFA mean by peace?
If football is truly meant to unite the world, then this prize—and the process that produced it—must be seriously reconsidered.
The awarding of the Peace Prize did not emerge from a transparent or democratic process. It reflects a broader pattern in which the Trump administration has exerted political and diplomatic pressure on international institutions to secure legitimacy and public endorsement. In other words, bullying. FIFA, despite its claims of neutrality and independence, appears to have yielded to that pressure.
But power imposed through coercion can be reversed through organized, collective, nonviolent action. If a government can pressure a global sports institution into legitimizing its leader under the banner of peace, then global civil society must be capable of compelling that same institution to correct its course. It is not about punishment or humiliation. It is about legitimacy.
The United States’ current posture toward the rest of the world—marked by sanctions, coercive diplomacy, military threats, and disregard for international norms—stands in open contradiction to the values the Peace Prize claims to represent. One cannot credibly speak the language of peace while practicing domination.
Revoking this prize would send a clear message: Peace is not a public-relations exercise, nor a political trophy extracted through pressure.
When intimidation succeeds without challenge, it becomes precedent. When it is challenged collectively and nonviolently, it becomes brittle.
Revoking this prize would send a clear message: Peace is not a public-relations exercise, nor a political trophy extracted through pressure.
This controversy unfolds as the 2026 FIFA World Cup approaches. Scheduled from June 11 to July 19, it will be the first-ever 48-team tournament, with 104 matches across 16 cities, 11 of them in the United States, the others in Canada and Mexico.
International fans, activists, and political figures are questioning whether the current US political climate—particularly immigration enforcement practices, travel restrictions, and border policies—makes the country a safe and welcoming host for a global celebration meant to unite humanity.
Calls to boycott the 2026 World Cup are spreading across social media, as supporters report canceled travel plans; withdrawn ticket purchases; and growing fears of arbitrary detention, visa denials, and hostile treatment at borders. Human rights organizations have repeatedly warned about detention practices and the erosion of civil liberties—concerns that take on heightened urgency when millions are expected to cross borders for a global event.
If there is one nonviolent action in 2026 with the potential to shift global consciousness, it is an international campaign demanding accountability from FIFA itself.
Such a campaign could call for:
FIFA is not a neutral body floating above politics. It is a global institution with 211 member associations, whose decisions reflect values, alliances, and power relations. What FIFA chooses to reward—and whom it chooses to honor—sends a message to billions.
One of the most powerful nonviolent levers lies beyond stadiums and borders: broadcasting. The World Cup exists not only as a sporting event, but as a global media product. Television networks and streaming platforms pay billions in licensing fees that finance FIFA’s operations. Without those fees—and without audiences—the tournament loses its economic foundation.
A coordinated nonviolent campaign could therefore call on broadcasters to:
This action would not target players, fans, or workers. It would target the financial and symbolic infrastructure that allows FIFA to operate without accountability. This is not censorship—it is ethical refusal.
For such a campaign to succeed, it must be global, visible, and coordinated. That is why social media is not secondary—it is essential. Social media platforms are today’s nonviolent infrastructure. They allow millions of people to act together across borders, languages, and cultures without centralized control. When used strategically, they transform isolated actions into universal pressure.
A global campaign could:
This is how nonviolent movements grow: through visibility, participation, and persistence—until silence becomes impossible.
In order to succeed, however, this must be more than a media moment. It must become a grassroots nonviolent movement.
Football clubs, supporters’ associations, players, national federations, and fans everywhere should be called upon to stand—not against the sport, but for human dignity. This is about withdrawing consent from illegitimacy and restoring meaning to the game. Football has always been more than a game. It reflects who we are—and who we choose to become.
After all, people are not football fans first. They are human beings first.
The question now is simple: Will FIFA continue to serve power—or will it revoke the Peace Prize and reclaim the game for humanity?
This article was first published in English on Pressenza and is now available in: Spanish.
"Trump is once again using lies, racism, and xenophobia to block entire groups of people from coming and contributing to this country," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal.
The US State Department announced one of the Trump administration's most far-reaching efforts to restrict immigration to the country on Wednesday, saying on social media that it will pause processing of all immigrant visas from 75 countries and claiming people from those nations often receive public benefits after arriving in the US.
"The freeze will remain active until the US can ensure that new immigrants will not extract wealth from the American people," reads the statement.
The countries represent more than one-third of the 193 countries on the planet and include Afghanistan, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Laos, Somalia, and Sudan.
The announcement comes as the administration is seeking to expand the definition of what constitutes a "public charge"—people who are likely to utilize public benefits.
President Donald Trump and his top advisers have long been fixated on the claim that immigrants and refugees overuse social services, and the White House has particularly been focused on the use of public programs by Somali immigrants following a fraud scandal in Minnesota.
Last year, the libertarian Cato Institute published a study showing that despite Trump's claims, native-born Americans consume more public benefits than immigrants on average per capita.
Immigrants used 21% fewer welfare and public benefits than Americans born in the US, the study found.
"Trump is once again using lies, racism, and xenophobia to block entire groups of people from coming and contributing to this country," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.).
Late last year, the administration proposed a rule that would direct immigration officers to consider whether an immigrant would use programs such as Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and free and reduced-cost school lunches when deciding whether to grant them entry to the US.
A number of observers noted Wednesday that the State Department announced the visa processing freeze months before the US is set to host the World Cup—and 15 of the 42 teams that have already qualified for the soccer tournament are reportedly from countries impacted by the new policy.
A State Department official told Politico that the pause is not expected to directly affect tourist visa processing, but the outlet reported that "individuals could still face difficulties if their countries are subject to other Trump travel bans and restrictions."
The US embassies in Haiti and Iran both posted warnings about visa restrictions on their websites.
"The US should lose hosting rights," said Etan Nechin of Haaretz. "This is a travesty."
Multiple rights organizations have slammed FIFA for giving Trump a "peace prize" given what they describe as his "appalling" human rights record.
International soccer organization FIFA has now been hit with an ethics complaint over its widely criticized decision to award President Donald Trump its first-ever "FIFA Peace Prize" last week.
The Athletic reported on Monday that FairSquare, a watchdog organization that monitors human rights abuses in the sporting world, filed an eight-page complaint with FIFA’s Ethics Committee alleging that FIFA president Gianni Infantino has repeatedly violated the organization's own code of ethics, which states that "all persons bound by the code remain politically neutral... in dealings with government institutions."
The complaint then documents multiple cases in which Infantino allegedly broke the political neutrality pledge, including his public lobbying for Trump to receive a Nobel Peace Prize; a November interview at the America Business Forum in which Infantino called Trump "a really close friend," and hit back at criticisms that the president had embraced authoritarianism; and Infantino's decision to award Trump with a made-up "peace prize" after failing to help him secure a more prestigious version.
FairSquare zeroed in on Infantino's remarks during the 2026 World Cup draw last week in which he told Trump that "you definitely deserve the first FIFA Peace Prize for your action for what you have obtained in your way, but you obtained it in an incredible way, and you can always count, Mr. President, on my support."
The organization remarked that "any reasonable interpretation of Mr. Infantino’s comments would conclude that he a) encouraged people to support the political agenda of President Trump, and b) expressed his personal approval of President Trump’s political agenda." This was a particularly egregious violation, FairSquare added, because Infantino was "appearing at a public event in his role as FIFA president."
Even without Infantino's gushing remarks about Trump, FairSquare said that "the award of a prize of this nature to a sitting political leader is in and of itself a clear breach of FIFA’s duty of neutrality."
FairSquare isn't the only organization to criticize Trump receiving a "peace prize" from the official governing body behind the World Cup.
Human Rights Watch was quick to blast FIFA last week for giving Trump any sort of peace prize given what it described as the administration’s “appalling” human rights record.
Jamil Dakwar, human rights director at the ACLU, also said that Trump was undeserving of the award, and he noted the administration “has aggressively pursued a systematic anti-human rights campaign to target, detain, and disappear immigrants in communities across the US—including the deployment of the National Guard in cities where the World Cup will take place.”