Just hours before the kickoff of the 2026 World Cup, FIFA could have simply focused on football. It could have highlighted the game, the national teams, the fans, and the universality of a global event meant to unite people beyond political divides. But the institution led by Gianni Infantino once again chose to remind us that its supposed neutrality is not a guiding principle—it is a variable instrument.
The decision to grant a symbolic accreditation to French journalist Christophe Gleizes, currently detained in Algeria, was hailed by Reporters Without Borders as a “strong gesture” of support. According to several media outlets, FIFA issued him accreditation to cover the entire 2026 World Cup—hosted in the United States, Canada, and Mexico from June 11 to July 19—even though he remains incarcerated in Algeria following a conviction for “apology of terrorism,” reportedly linked to alleged contacts with members of the MAK, an organization classified as terrorist by Algerian authorities.
From a symbolic standpoint, the message is clear. Accreditation is not merely an administrative badge. In this context, it becomes a political act. It signals that FIFA publicly recognizes a cause, aligns itself with a pressure campaign, and chooses to give global visibility to a judicial case that falls under a sovereign state’s jurisdiction. That some view it as a humanitarian gesture is one thing. That FIFA still claims to remain outside politics at the same time is another.
This is precisely where the core contradiction lies.
Neutrality invoked with Israel, abandoned with Algeria
When the Palestinian Football Association and several international voices called for measures against Israel due to the impact of the conflict on Palestinian football, Gianni Infantino responded with a now-revealing formula: FIFA “cannot solve geopolitical problems.” In October 2025, faced with pressure demanding Israel’s suspension, the FIFA president emphasized football’s role as a vehicle for peace and unity, while refusing any concrete action against the Israeli federation.
Such a position could be legitimate—if applied consistently. A global sports body can choose non-interference, shielding competitions from diplomatic conflicts and adhering to a strict doctrine of neutrality. But that doctrine must be universal.
In the Gleizes case, however, FIFA does more than promote football. It takes a stance in a sensitive matter involving Algerian justice, state sovereignty, national security, French-Algerian relations, and the highly volatile issue of Kabyle separatism. It shifts from sport into political signaling.
It is this asymmetry that shocks. When it comes to Israel, the institution invokes prudence, balance, peace, and its inability to address geopolitical conflicts. When it comes to Algeria, it suddenly discovers moral authority, willingness to intervene, and freedom to act.
The Gleizes case: a symbolic gesture that is not neutral
Christophe Gleizes, a contributor notably to So Foot, was arrested in May 2024 while in Kabylia for a report on JS Kabylie. He was later sentenced to seven years in prison for “apology of terrorism,” a sentence reportedly upheld on appeal.
His support committee and RSF argue that he is a sports journalist whose place should be in stadiums, not in prison. By granting him accreditation, FIFA implicitly adopts this narrative. Again, this is not merely administrative—it is narrative alignment.
The issue is not to deny the human dimension, nor to challenge the right of a family to request clemency, nor that of press freedom organizations to advocate for a journalist. The real question is why FIFA, an international sports body, considers it legitimate to intervene in this case while declaring itself incompetent in far more severe situations involving destruction of sports infrastructure, deaths of athletes, or the collapse of football in war-torn regions.
By making this gesture public on the eve of the World Cup, FIFA transforms an Algerian judicial matter into an international issue. It knows the media impact will be maximal. It knows the timing is not neutral. It knows the accreditation functions as a message directed at Algiers.
An institution that selects its indignations
FIFA likes to present itself as a moral force capable of uniting humanity through football. Yet its recent history shows an institution that is deeply political when it wants to be, and conveniently apolitical when it prefers restraint.
The contrast with Russia is often cited. After the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, FIFA quickly suspended Russian teams from international competition. Observers have since pointed out the gap between that decision and the absence of similar measures against Israel despite calls for suspension.
FIFA can act—it has proven it. It can suspend, sanction, exclude, isolate. But it decides when, against whom, and under what pressure. This selectivity fuels accusations of double standards.
In the Israeli case, the organization hides behind pacifist, abstract rhetoric. In the Algerian case, it personalizes, dramatizes, and amplifies. On one side, collective suffering is diluted in generic language about peace. On the other, an individual case becomes a global symbol.
An unnecessary provocation in a fragile diplomatic context
The Gleizes affair unfolds in an already sensitive climate between Algiers and Paris. His conviction, detention, calls for presidential clemency, and surrounding diplomatic or media initiatives are part of a delicate bilateral environment. According to several reports, his lawyers indicated in early June that the rejection of a prosecutorial appeal could open the way to a potential pardon.
In this context, FIFA’s decision may be perceived not as a gesture of appeasement but as public pressure. Yet public pressure—especially from an influential international body—rarely creates the right conditions for de-escalation. On the contrary, it can harden positions, fuel perceptions of interference, and make any act of clemency politically more costly.
This is the ambiguity of the gesture: if its aim were truly humanitarian, it could have been discreet, diplomatic, respectful of institutional channels. By choosing symbolic staging on the eve of the world’s biggest sporting event, FIFA prioritized media impact over diplomatic effectiveness.
State sovereignty cannot be applied selectively
At its core, the issue is simple: FIFA cannot demand that states respect its sporting autonomy while allowing itself symbolic interventions in national judicial matters whenever a media-friendly cause arises.
Judicial sovereignty does not disappear because a detainee is a journalist, a foreigner, or linked to football. Legal processes can be challenged, debated, or criticized by NGOs, lawyers, governments, or competent international mechanisms. But when a global sports federation takes them up, it blurs the line between humanitarian advocacy, political pressure, and influence diplomacy.
This confusion is all the more problematic because FIFA refuses to fully acknowledge its own politicization. It intervenes—but claims not to do politics. It selects causes—but claims to defend universal principles. It sanctions some—but explains its restraint toward others by geopolitical impotence.
Global governance under influence
FIFA under Gianni Infantino increasingly appears as an institution shaped by global power dynamics. Its decisions are never purely sporting—they sit at the crossroads of diplomacy, economic interests, strategic alliances, media pressures, and power balances.
This does not mean every FIFA decision is illegitimate. But it does require one minimum standard: consistency. If it defends human rights, it must do so everywhere. If it refuses to engage in political conflicts, it must abstain everywhere. If it claims neutrality, it must not elevate certain causes while burying others under hollow statements about peace and unity.
World football does not need an institution that distributes moral legitimacy based on media pressure of the moment. It needs clear, impartial, transparent governance, capable of applying the same standards to both powerful and less powerful actors.
Conclusion: FIFA facing its own reflection
The accreditation granted to Christophe Gleizes is not a minor detail. It once again exposes FIFA’s central flaw: its inability to maintain a stable doctrine between sporting neutrality and political intervention.
Gianni Infantino cannot, on one hand, claim that FIFA cannot resolve geopolitical conflicts when it comes to Israel, and on the other, give global resonance to an Algerian judicial matter during a sensitive diplomatic period. This contradiction is not merely awkward—it is politically significant.
By choosing its silences and its indignations, FIFA undermines its credibility. It claims to unite, yet it divides. It claims to arbitrate, yet it takes sides. It claims to defend football, yet exposes it to constant suspicions of instrumentalization.
Football deserves better than situational neutrality. It deserves an institution capable of holding all states to the same standard, treating all peoples with equal dignity, and approaching all causes with the same coherence. Failing that, FIFA will continue to appear not as the home of world football, but as a mirror of global power struggles—with their calculated silences, selective outrage, and principles applied at variable geometry.
By Belgacem Merbah
Comments
Post a Comment