The FIFA World Cup is one of the most eagerly anticipated major quadrennial events by the international community. Through the slogan “football unites the world” and various related sub-campaigns, FIFA seeks to position itself as a pro-justice agent of world peace. However, FIFA’s self-branding through these slogans stands in stark contrast to its actions, decisions, and policies. This stance seems to reveal FIFA’s adoption of a shameless political strategy amid the global political landscape (Rachman et al., 2025). This practice has become increasingly evident in the process of hosting the 2026 World Cup in North America, drawing widespread criticism from various quarters.
This article will discuss several key questions: first, what forms does injustice and FIFA’s tolerance of injustice take? Second, how does FIFA practice double standards? And third, what is the nature of FIFA’s selective geopolitical stance?
Injustice and FIFA’s Tolerance of It
FIFA often undermines the positive brand image it is trying to build by turning a blind eye to injustices occurring under its authority. Consequently, FIFA’s branding efforts to date have been rife with selective treatment, as FIFA applies policies selectively to certain parties. FIFA’s tolerance of injustice is evident, at the very least, through three key actors under its authority: World Cup host nations, soccer clubs, and fans.
Many narratives suggest that the 2026 World Cup in the United States will be the worst World Cup of all time (Aleks Eror, 2026). One reason behind this narrative stems from the United States’ politically discriminatory stance as the host of the 2026 World Cup toward members of the Iranian soccer delegation that qualified for the tournament. Ahead of the tournament, the U.S. government denied visas to 15 key members of the Iranian delegation, which severely hindered the Iranian team’s ability to prepare optimally for the matches (Fisher, 2026). The U.S. government’s discriminatory stance toward the Iranian delegation violates the Host Government Agreement, which every World Cup host country is required to adhere to. Nevertheless, FIFA remained powerless and chose to remain silent regarding the discrimination perpetrated by the U.S. government. Beyond its tolerance of this injustice, this stance also reveals FIFA’s unfair treatment of Indonesia. In 2023, FIFA revoked Indonesia’s right to host the U-20 World Cup because Indonesia objected to granting permission for the Israeli soccer team to visit the country (Nair, 2023).
Furthermore, Israel and its stakeholders have often received special treatment from FIFA, even though they have violated established regulations. As evidence, approximately seven to eight Israeli soccer clubs have been found to have violated FIFA’s territorial rules (Article 64 of the Statutes) regarding the prohibition on organizing competitions and establishing clubs in the territory of another member association without permission (Ziegler, 2026). Although various organizations, such as the UN Human Rights Council (United Nations, 2024), Amnesty International (Amnesty International, 2026), and Human Rights Watch (Human Rights Watch, 2016), have urged FIFA to impose strict sanctions, FIFA has chosen to condone this injustice by failing to take disciplinary action against the clubs in question (Middle East Eye, 2026).
Furthermore, Israeli soccer fans and clubs have received special treatment from FIFA in the form of turning a blind eye to the systemic racism they perpetrate. FIFA’s failure to fairly uphold the principle of non-discrimination is evident in its stance toward Beitar Jerusalem, a club under the Israeli Football Association (IFA). This club has consistently and systematically demonstrated discriminatory and racist behavior through its policies, slogans, and chants in soccer stadiums (The Economist, 2020). When the Palestine Football Association (PFA) and human rights groups urged FIFA to impose sanctions, FIFA chose to remain silent, arguing that it must remain neutral on religious and political matters (McCail, 2025). After years of waiting, FIFA finally launched an investigation after the PFA formally submitted documents detailing human rights violations and systemic racism to the FIFA Congress (Davis, 2024), which was followed by the imposition of a fine of 150,000 Swiss Francs ($190,700) on the IFA (AFP, 2026). According to Article 4 of FIFA’s statutes, this decision is relatively lenient and amounts to tacit condonation, as the appropriate sanctions should have been suspension or expulsion from membership. Furthermore, FIFA’s response has tended to be slow and indecisive compared to its stance toward other soccer clubs with similar violations.
Beyond these three aspects, more specifically, FIFA’s injustice is also evident in matches under its jurisdiction. For example, during the 2026 World Cup, FIFA has repeatedly faced criticism—due to referee decisions and VAR rules—for demonstrating unfair treatment in several matches. The majority of the criticism has focused on a few controversial matches, such as the USA vs. Bosnia-Herzegovina (Shamim, 2026), Iran vs. Egypt (Reuters, 2026), and Egypt vs. Argentina (Pathak, 2026).
FIFA’s Double Standard Practices
The practice of double standards is deeply ingrained in FIFA, especially when dealing with actors from different backgrounds. FIFA often exhibits selective treatment by taking a firm stance against developing and poor countries, yet remaining tolerant of violations committed by developed or Western nations. This section will not detail all instances of FIFA’s double standards, but will focus only on two particularly prominent examples: the difference in FIFA’s stance toward violators of international law (between Russia and Israel) and the difference in FIFA’s stance toward perpetrators of apartheid (between South Africa and Russia).
FIFA’s branding efforts stand in stark contrast to the stance it takes toward actors who violate international law. FIFA strives to demonstrate its commitment to world peace through various slogans and campaigns (FIFA, 2026). Yet at the same time, it applies a selective approach toward actors proven to have violated international law. This was evident when FIFA moved very quickly to impose sanctions on Russia just four days after Russia annexed Ukraine, without waiting for official decisions from various international authorities. Nevertheless, FIFA continues to tolerate Israel as a perpetrator of genocide even after official reports from the UN and a ruling by the ICC. This stands in stark contrast to the slogans and peace campaigns that FIFA has long championed.
Furthermore, FIFA actually demonstrated a fairly progressive stance when it imposed sanctions on South Africa in 1961—suspending its membership for implementing the apartheid system (Joe, 2010). This was a commendable move, as FIFA sought to commit to upholding non-discrimination norms under its authority. However, it appears that FIFA is unable to apply these non-discrimination norms to Israel. Although Israel was found guilty following an investigation, the sanctions imposed were limited to a fine. The facts show that discrimination occurs in Israel, albeit in a different form than that practiced by South Africa. Therefore, all forms of discrimination should be treated equally, regardless of who is involved or the background of the perpetrators.
FIFA Selective Geopolitics: Politics of Selective Outrage
The discussion in the previous section demonstrates that FIFA is quite selective when making policy decisions, particularly between parties from Western countries and those from the Global South. This stance contrasts with the remarks made by Gianni Infantino, FIFA president, in one of his speeches before the International Olympic Committee (IOC) Session, in which he emphasized that political neutrality in sports must be protected. Infantino stated: “There is no more powerful tool than sport to unite people. We must protect the autonomy of sport—its political neutrality—and safeguard the values of sport” (FIFA, 2023). While this statement appears optimistic and hopeful, on-the-ground realities reveal that FIFA’s stance tends to be selective. For example, this selective geopolitical stance is evident in how FIFA is very lenient toward the United States, yet extremely strict and firm toward Qatar when it hosted the World Cup.
This selective attitude is evident in how FIFA enforces strict standards of conduct, imposes firm sanctions, and issues swift reprimands against anyone found guilty. However, when the offenders come from Western powers, FIFA tends to take a lenient stance and tries to show tolerance. Therefore, if FIFA truly wishes to use soccer as a tool to unite people and foster peace, then the various noble principles it has declared must apply to all nations without exception.
References
FIFA. (2026). Inside FIFA – United for Peace. https://inside.fifa.com