FIFA’s campaign slogan insists that “Football Unites the World” – and where better to stage that message than the US, where mass deportations and a widely contested war have become part of the political backdrop? It is an incongruous setting for everything the World Cup claims to represent, leading the New Republic to make a particularly stark comparison: “It threatens to be a modern-day taste of Hitler’s 1936 Summer Olympics, when Germany hosted the global games while aiming at the same time to highlight Nazi domination.”

With Trump serving as chair of the US task force, many have asked whether the 2026 World Cup could become one of the most compromised tournaments in the competition’s history. It is a grand claim, especially considering FIFA’s recent past: in 2015, an FBI investigation led the US Department of Justice to indict nine FIFA officials and five corporate executives on charges including racketeering, wire fraud and money laundering. FIFA has never exactly been known as a bastion of morality, nor has the World Cup always been seen as a particularly fair competition. The previous tournament, in Qatar, was shadowed by reports that more than 6,500 migrant workers from five South Asian countries had died in the country in the decade after it won hosting rights. Still, with Trump involved, allegations of undue influence and dishonest conduct are becoming increasingly hard to ignore. Below, we’ve highlighted some of the main controversies from this year’s tournament (so far).

TRUMP WAS AWARDED THE FIRST EVER FIFA PEACE PRIZE 

In 2025, Trump was awarded the inaugural FIFA Peace Prize, supposedly “in recognition of his extraordinary actions to promote peace and unity around the world.” Presenting the award, FIFA president Gianni Infantino said Trump “definitely deserves the first FIFA Peace Prize”, before adding: “You can always count, Mr President, on my support, on the support of the entire football community – or ‘soccer’ community – to help you make peace and make the world prosper all over the world.” The Trump administration has been eager to cast him as thee president of peace, as evidenced by the hissy fit he threw over not receiving a Nobel Peace Prize. After the 2025 award went instead to Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado, she dedicated it in part to Trump, thanking him for his support of her cause.

Despite the Trump administration’s efforts – and FIFA’s pathetic attempt to butter up the host nation – we know that Trump is hardly a man of peace. Like his predecessors, he has shown himself willing to use American military force abroad: this year alone, his administration has launched or authorised deadly strikes in Iran, Nigeria, Somalia, as well as military action in Venezuela, among other places.

TRUMP CALLED FIFA TO REVERSE A USA PLAYER’S RED CARD

After the FIFA Peace Prize debacle, one thing became very clear: when Trump speaks, FIFA listens. That impression only hardened after he phoned the organisation over the suspension of US player Folarin Balogun, who had been shown a red card against Bosnia and Herzegovina. The White House said the calls were made to “understand” why Balogun had been suspended. Soon afterwards, FIFA suspended Balogun’s automatic one-match ban, allowing him to play against Belgium in the last 16 – a game the US ultimately lost 4-1. The decision caused significant outrage, with many seeing it as a clear-cut case of bias. The Royal Belgian Football Association criticised the ruling, arguing that it sat uneasily with FIFA’s own disciplinary code, under which a red card automatically results in a suspension for the team’s next match.

THE FRENCH FOOTBALL FEDERATION GOT FIFA TO REVERSE A FRENCH PLAYER’S YELLOW CARD 

Where Trump leads, other countries follow. After he appealed to FIFA over Balogun’s suspension and got the outcome he wanted, the French Football Federation tried something similar, asking FIFA to rescind the yellow card Michael Olise received against Paraguay. The implied question was obvious: if the US could do it, why couldn’t France? But on July 8, FIFA dismissed the appeal, leaving Olise one booking away from suspension. The decision prompted commentators and fans to question why one rule appeared to apply to the US, and another to everyone else.

THE ARGENTINA OF IT ALL 

Where do you even begin with Argentina? After their match against Egypt, conspiracy theories about FIFA fixing the tournament in the reigning champions’ favour came flooding in. During the game, VAR ruled out a goal by Mostafa Ziko after midfielder Marwan Attia was penalised for stepping on Lisandro Martínez’s foot at the start of the move. Egypt also argued that Mohamed Salah had been fouled in the Argentina penalty area; whether or not it was a penalty, the incident was not reviewed on-field, and Argentina scored almost immediately afterwards. Taken together, the decisions helped turn a wildly controversial game into a 3-2 victory for the holders.

The Egyptian Football Association has since filed an official complaint over the refereeing, questioning the fairness and consistency of the decisions. FIFA’s refereeing chief Pierluigi Collina has rejected allegations of bias, insisting the officials acted independently – but that has done little to quiet the noise. One of the major conspiracy theories circulating online is that FIFA would prefer Lionel Messi to receive the trophy from Trump, rather than someone like Kylian Mbappé, who has been more outspoken politically and could, the thinking goes, use the moment to make some kind of statement. 

FIFA’s refereeing chief, Pierluigi Collina, has denounced the conspiracy theories, warning that “unfounded allegations have no place in our sport” and arguing that attacks on officials’ integrity can lead to threats against them and their families. That caveat is important: allegations of fixing should not be thrown around lightly. Still, the wider scrutiny around Argentina is unlikely to disappear anytime soon. On July 9, it was reported that the FBI had opened a preliminary investigation into the Argentine Football Association’s financial operations in the US, examining whether transactions linked to the body could amount to money laundering or fraud under American law.