When the referee becomes the unruly crowd by Kasie Hewitt

Football has always claimed a special place in global culture, a shared language that transcends borders, ideologies and political divisions. At least that was the promise. FIFA long insisted that the world’s most popular sport stood above politics, guided by neutrality and unity. Today that promise feels increasingly hollow. Under the leadership of Gianni Infantino the organization meant to guard football’s independence appears more politically entangled than ever.

The role of FIFA president was never supposed to resemble that of a political figure. The job demanded stewardship protecting the game, its values and its credibility. Instead Infantino has turned the position into a stage of personal diplomacy and political signaling. His visible admiration for powerful leaders and in particular Donald Trump, risks dragging football into ideological battles it once tried desperately to avoid.

Football’s global appeal depends on inclusion. Fans come from every religion, culture and political belief imaginable. When FIFA’s leadership appears to favor one political narrative it fractures that universal identity. The problem is not that political leaders attend matches or support tournaments, that has always been inevitable. The problem emerges when the organization itself appears to take sides.

Infantino’s tenure has increasingly blurred the line between sport and political spectacle. Public appearances, symbolic gestures and strategic friendships with controversial figures have shifted attention away from the game itself. Instead of protecting football from political pressure, FIFA’s leadership now seems eager to stand in its spotlight.

This matters profoundly as the world approaches the 2026 World Cup hosted primarily in the United States. A tournament of this magnitude requires stability trust, and global goodwill. The United States already represents a politically polarized environment. The last thing football needs is a governing body perceived as aligned with one faction or ideology within that landscape.

A World Cup should unite fans, not provoke boycotts, diplomatic tensions or political protest. Yet FIFA under Infantino risks exactly that scenario. If supporters begin to see the tournament as a political event rather than a sporting celebration, the damage will extend far beyond one competition. Sponsors hesitate, federations grow uneasy and fans disengage. Football loses its neutrality and with it part of its magic.

Leadership in global sport demands restraint. It requires understanding that symbolism matters. Every handshake, every speech, every public endorsement carries weight. The FIFA president is not merely an administrator; he is a custodian of a shared global institution. When that custodian appears more interested in political proximity than institutional integrity, questions naturally follow.

After nearly a decade at the helm, Infantino’s legacy stands at a crossroads. He has expanded tournaments, increased revenues and elevated FIFA’s commercial reach. Yet success measured in money and visibility cannot compensate for a loss of credibility. Football does not belong to presidents, politicians or governing elites. It belongs to the billions who watch, play and believe in it.

Perhaps the moment has arrived for renewal. Not out of hostility, but necessity. FIFA needs leadership that actively distances the game from political theater rather than amplifying it. With the United States World Cup approaching, the stakes could not be higher.

If FIFA truly wishes to protect football’s universal spirit, it may require its president to do the one thing referees sometimes must, step aside so the game itself can continue fairly.