Tehran (February 22, 2026) – FIFA funds Gaza stadiums with a 50m package for football infrastructure in the besieged Palestinian territory, following more than two years of international pressure over Israel’s military campaign in Gaza. The pledge includes money for a new stadium, training facilities and broader football projects in an area where large parts of civilian infrastructure have been destroyed. The move comes after repeated calls from football fans, human rights groups, United Nations experts and several governments to suspend Israel from international football over the high number of Palestinian casualties since October 2023. Critics say the decision raises questions about how global sports bodies respond to armed conflicts and alleged human rights abuses.
General context and FIFA’s funding pledge
According to Press TV, FIFA president Gianni Infantino announced the 50m commitment at an event described as the “Board of Peace” in Washington, hosted by US President Donald Trump. The report says the funds are earmarked for constructing a new stadium, building training facilities and supporting wider football infrastructure in Gaza, which has been heavily damaged during more than two years of conflict. Press TV reports that the pledge follows earlier indications, including a report by Spanish outlet AS, that FIFA intended to allocate part of the 2026 World Cup revenues to projects in Gaza.
As reported by Mohammad Ali Haqshenas of Press TV, FIFA’s announcement comes after the organization resisted calls to suspend Israel from international competitions in response to the situation in Gaza. The article states that more than 72,000 Palestinians have been killed since October 7, 2023, most of them women and children, and that many stadiums and sports facilities in the territory have been damaged or destroyed. Press TV notes that while FIFA rapidly moved to suspend Russia from global competitions in 2022 after its military operation in Ukraine, it has not taken comparable disciplinary action against Israel.
According to the same report, FIFA has presented its approach as humanitarian, positioning the funding as support for recovery and reconstruction in Gaza. The stated objective of the package is to help Palestinian communities rebuild football infrastructure and regain access to sports despite ongoing hardship. Press TV’s coverage emphasizes that the pledge is being made at a time when the conflict has severely affected daily life, with graveyards reportedly outnumbering residential neighborhoods in some areas.
Why is FIFA’s decision drawing strong reactions?
As reported by Press TV, FIFA has argued that it must remain “apolitical” when asked to sanction Israel and has described the conflict as a “geopolitical issue” outside its direct remit. The outlet cites earlier comments by Infantino in October, in which he stressed the organization’s commitment to using football to “bring people together in a divided world” while declining to endorse calls for Israel’s suspension. Press TV notes that this position has been criticized by campaigners and some officials who say sporting bodies cannot ignore large‑scale human rights concerns when deciding membership and participation.
According to the report, United Nations experts have previously urged FIFA and UEFA to suspend Israel, arguing that the duty to prevent genocide is a peremptory norm of international law that applies to all actors, including sports organizations. They have warned that continuing to treat competitions involving Israeli clubs as “business as usual” risks normalizing serious violations. Press TV writes that critics see the new funding pledge as reframing a question of accountability into one of post‑conflict aid, without addressing demands for sanctions.
Press TV also highlights public and grassroots responses, including demonstrations in cities such as Manchester where protesters called for Israel’s expulsion from FIFA. The outlet notes that supporters’ groups and advocacy campaigns have used banners, stadium displays and walkouts to press for a change in policy. It reports that the “Game Over Israel” campaign, backed by the American Arab Anti‑Discrimination Committee and launched in New York City, has been mobilizing fans to call for a boycott of Israeli teams.
Supporting details and legal challenges
According to Press TV, the debate over FIFA’s stance has now expanded into legal arenas, with a detailed complaint submitted to the International Criminal Court (ICC) on February 16. The report states that the communication targets Infantino and UEFA president Aleksander Čeferin, alleging that they have aided and abetted war crimes and crimes against humanity under the Rome Statute. The complaint reportedly focuses on the continued participation of Israeli football clubs based in settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories in leagues organized by the Israel Football Association.
Press TV reports that these settlement‑based clubs are allowed to host matches on land considered occupied, while Palestinians are barred from attending games or playing for the teams, and that the complaint argues this setup helps normalize and legitimize the occupation. The article notes that the submission spans about 120 pages and is supported by Palestinian footballers, clubs, landowners and international advocacy groups. It asserts that FIFA and UEFA were warned multiple times by UN experts, human rights organizations and internal monitoring mechanisms about the legal and ethical implications of their policies.
As reported by Haqshenas, this ICC communication is part of a broader series of complaints and campaigns targeting football’s governing bodies over their handling of the Israel–Palestine issue. Press TV points out that the legal action challenges FIFA’s and UEFA’s claim to neutrality and raises the prospect that sports administrators could face international scrutiny over how competitions intersect with international humanitarian law. The outlet also notes that the case comes as Israeli political and military leaders face their own legal and diplomatic challenges over the conduct of operations in Gaza.
How does the Russia precedent shape perceptions?
According to Press TV, critics frequently compare FIFA’s approach to Israel with its response to Russia following the start of the war in Ukraine in 2022. The report recalls that FIFA moved quickly at that time to suspend Russian teams from international competitions, justifying the decision by citing the need to protect the integrity and safety of global football. The outlet contrasts that earlier, rapid response with the organization’s reluctance to impose similar sanctions on Israel after prolonged fighting in Gaza.
Press TV quotes Spanish Sports Minister Pilar Alegría as saying in September that “it is difficult to explain and understand that there is a double standard” and that sport should at least take a position similar to that adopted against Russia. The article also cites former Manchester United captain Eric Cantona, who reportedly stated at a fundraising event that “FIFA and UEFA must suspend Israel” and that clubs should refuse to play against Israeli sides. These comments are presented as examples of prominent voices within politics and football calling for a consistent application of principles.
The report further notes that fan‑driven campaigns have amplified those arguments by invoking the Russia precedent in their messaging and protests. According to Press TV, banners, chants and public statements have frequently highlighted what campaigners see as an inconsistency in how different conflicts are treated. The outlet suggests that this perception of unequal treatment has become a central point of contention for those who argue that FIFA funds Gaza stadiums while keeping Israel fully integrated into international competitions.
What are the implications and possible future developments?
According to Press TV, the 50m package, though significant for sports infrastructure, represents only a small portion of FIFA’s wider revenues and financial capacity. The report suggests that observers and activists will likely judge the initiative not only on the projects it delivers in Gaza but also on whether it prompts any broader policy changes toward the conflict. It notes that some critics view the funding as “sportwashing,” a term used to describe the use of sporting events or investments to improve the image of states or institutions linked to controversial policies.
Press TV indicates that pressure on FIFA and UEFA is expected to continue through legal, political and grassroots channels, particularly as the ICC considers the complaint involving senior football administrators. The outcome of that submission, if taken forward by prosecutors, could clarify whether and how international criminal law applies to decisions made by sports governing bodies about competition structures and membership. At the same time, the report notes that upcoming tournaments, including the 2026 World Cup in North America, will provide visible platforms where campaigners may continue to raise the issue.
According to the article, ongoing UN scrutiny and civil society advocacy are likely to shape the environment in which FIFA funds Gaza stadiums and implements its planned projects. Questions remain over how reconstruction efforts in Gaza will proceed amid continued security and humanitarian challenges, and how strongly football infrastructure can contribute to recovery in such a context. Press TV’s coverage underscores that for many campaigners, financial assistance alone does not resolve their central concern: whether global sports institutions will align their policies with calls to address alleged grave violations of international law.
In the coming months, attention is expected to remain focused on FIFA’s actions both on and off the field as the organization distributes funds, manages international fixtures and responds to legal and diplomatic pressure. For communities in Gaza, the pledged facilities may eventually offer spaces for training, competition and community activity if conditions permit construction and safe use. For FIFA, the decision to fund new stadiums and training grounds while maintaining existing competition arrangements with Israel will continue to be central to debates over neutrality, accountability and the role of sport in situations of conflict.
