Gianni Infantino and Donald Trump: “Sycophancy towards Trump has brought us nothing”

As the 2026 World Cup approaches, Gianni Infantino has never seemed so committed to a political relationship that he now shares with Donald Trump – a proximity that is causing growing concern within FIFA. According to people close to the meetings between the two men, Infantino is often admiring, going so far as to make gestures of affectation which, for certain executives of the federation, border on sycophancy.

This behavior is not trivial: Infantino would depend, in an unprecedented way, on the mood of the American president. This dependence has transformed the dynamic around the tournament, to the point of making it a double presidency on which its progress intrinsically depends. Part of the official explanation is that Trump requires permanent "management" — but for many officials, Infantino has gone well beyond mere diplomacy and would appear to admire the American head of state.

FIFA employees report that after certain trips to see Trump, Infantino sometimes adopts the tone and formulas of the American president. Among the initiatives of the presidency, the proposal of a "Peace Prize" by FIFA was perceived as an idea emanating directly from the presidential office, causing embarrassment and criticism with each new geopolitical interference: operations linked to Venezuela, mention of an intervention on Greenland and, above all, the explosive file around Iran.

These episodes have aroused rare anger among senior FIFA officials, who no longer recognize the governance that Infantino promised in 2016, following the Blatter scandal. The current president hoped that the big meeting of 2026 would offer him a safe space: the competition is in fact the first of his mandate which can be described as “entirely his”. But far from extinguishing criticism, the organization of the World Cup could on the contrary increase surveillance and protest.

The political dimension of the tournament is now under close surveillance, particularly from the Democratic side in the United States, who see the competition as a potential point of vulnerability for Trump. This tension materialized last week with the summoning of FIFA by the attorneys general of New York and New Jersey as part of an investigation into ticketing – a matter examined in the light of the American political climate. The complications surrounding the World Cup have mostly arisen in Democratic-leaning states, highlighting the political divide that runs through the host country.

On the concrete ground of the organization, FIFA's expectations from the American administration did not live up to expectations: according to officials, there was no decisive support on the questions of visas, transport, infrastructure or on the Iranian issue. A director cited in the investigation sums up: “the sycophancy towards Trump has brought us nothing.” The American president did not hesitate to publicly ridicule Infantino over the price of tickets, saying that he would not pay “four figures” for a place.

Image

The case of Iran illustrates the impasse: Infantino did everything for the Iranian selection to participate, both to avoid logistical chaos and to be able to hammer home that “football unites the world”. But the repeated and sometimes contradictory interventions of the presidential entourage complicated the situation, and Trump publicly varied his position in the space of a day, which made management even more laborious.

Even within the White House, enthusiasm is not unanimous: the first lady, Melania Trump, would not be particularly seduced by the efforts of Infantino, who has made numerous appearances with the presidential family. This lack of counterbalance and reluctance meets little opposition from Infantino, usually “too busy” to face direct criticism.

The phenomenon goes beyond the simple character: the “Trumpification” of FIFA, as some describe it, is accompanied by an erosion of institutional counter-powers, an obsession with winning and a propensity to deal with controversies through image and social networks rather than through public debate. The use of FIFA as a geopolitical platform - for example trying to get the Palestinian and Israeli leaders to shake hands during the Vancouver Congress - was seen as cruelly insensitive by many of the association representatives present.

All this raises a fundamental question about Infantino's trajectory: having come to power on a promise of reform after the fall of Sepp Blatter, he appears today as the architect of a model of governance where the president concentrates power. Some denounce “the ruse of reform”: FIFA would have changed its form, but the promised safeguards would not have resisted the rise of personal power.

The book Forward - The Revolution of Football by Alessandro Alciato, cited in the investigation, illustrates this change: “money no longer changed hands under the table; since 2016, it has been circulating in broad daylight,” notes the author. The result, observers believe, is that the World Cup was “sold” to states like Saudi Arabia without the uproar that marred the tenders for Russia and Qatar.

While FIFA declined to comment on the New York and New Jersey investigations, Infantino continues his strategy of approaching the White House. There remains the fear that Trump's next public statement - or an American judicial decision - will radically change the situation for the organization of the 2026 World Cup. The world of football, for its part, remains torn between unease and resignation, wondering how to position itself in the face of a power factory where sport and politics merge spectacularly.