US President Donald Trump speaks after receiving FIFA Peace Prize from FIFA President Gianni Infantino during the FIFA World Cup 2026 Official Draw at John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts on December 5, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Getty Images)

Fifty members of the European Parliament have called on FIFA`s ethics committee to investigate President Gianni Infantino for creating an annual "Peace Prize" and awarding it to US President Donald Trump.

The move, widely viewed as a blatant act of political pandering, has drawn sharp criticism for violating FIFA`s own rules on political neutrality.

In a letter dated June 29 and made public on Thursday night, the MEPs backed a formal ethics complaint originally filed by the British-based human rights group FairSquare in December 2025.

The lawmakers, representing 13 European countries, demanded that FIFA`s ethics committee examine "the decisions to introduce an annual FIFA Peace Prize and then award the prize to President Trump."

They specifically asked whether these decisions were taken by the FIFA Council, its bureau, or unilaterally by Infantino himself.

The MEPs stressed that FIFA`s code of ethics requires Infantino to "remain politically neutral."

Infantino`s public statements in support of the US president, they argued, breach FIFA statutes.

"This complaint represents an opportunity for FIFA to prove its commitment to political neutrality, transparency, and accountability," the letter stated.

Renew MEP Barry Andrews, who coordinated the letter, said: "The World Cup is supposed to unite the world.

When FIFA President Infantino favors one President over another, this brings FIFA and the whole tournament into disrepute."

FairSquare described the MEP intervention as "the most significant intervention by European policymakers into misgovernance and rule-breaking at the top of the world game since the European Parliament called on Infantino`s predecessor Sepp Blatter to resign in 2015."

Blatter stepped down shortly after his re-election that year amid widespread scandal.

Infantino has faced intense backlash for the prize, which many observers see as a transparent effort to curry favor with Trump.

The decision sparked heated debate on social media and was widely condemned as undermining FIFA`s credibility at a time when the organization claims to stand above politics.

So far, only Norway, whose football federation also called for an investigation in June, has joined the growing chorus of criticism among FIFA`s 211 member nations.

In an article published earlier this month on Press TV, Iqbal Jassat, an executive member of South Africa`s Media Review Network, argued that the 2026 FIFA World Cup has shattered the illusion that global sporting events exist above politics.

"What was marketed as the most inclusive World Cup in history has instead become a demonstration of how state power, border enforcement and geopolitical interests override the principles of equality and access that international sporting bodies claim to uphold," Jassat wrote.

He highlighted discriminatory visa restrictions and exclusions targeting teams, officials, and supporters from the Global South, including Iran, as stark evidence of double standards.

While FIFA preaches unity and non-discrimination, Jassat noted, powerful host nations like the United States impose political vetting that disproportionately affects countries outside Washington`s orbit, such as Iran.

Iranian officials, support staff, and fans faced systematic barriers, forcing workarounds and underscoring how geopolitical rivalries, including longstanding US hostility toward Iran, infiltrate even international sports.

The MEPs` letter also criticized FIFA`s deepening ties with Saudi Arabia, the host of the 2034 World Cup, and its recent sponsorship deal with the kingdom`s state oil giant Aramco, which the lawmakers described as "the world`s biggest corporate polluter."

The controversy has further exposed the selective application of principles at FIFA. While the organization has historically acted against smaller nations on political grounds, it appears far more accommodating when powerful Western interests are involved.