FIFA Issues Dual Rulings on Complaints from Palestinian Football Association Against Israel Football Association

By The Nation Staff

*March 24, 2026*

!President Donald Trump poses for a selfie with Gianni Infantino, the president of FIFA, during the FIFA World Cup 2026 Official Draw on December 5, 2025, in Washington, DC.

*(Hector Vivas / FIFA via Getty Images)*

FIFA, the international governing body for soccer, released two decisions last Thursday addressing complaints filed by the Palestinian Football Association (PFA) against the Israel Football Association (IFA). The rulings covered allegations of matches played on contested land in the West Bank and failures to address discriminatory behavior by fans of the Israeli club Beitar Jerusalem FC.

FIFA maintains a policy of political neutrality and prohibits discrimination in its statutes. The organization states that it remains "neutral in matters of politics" and that "discrimination of any kind...is strictly prohibited and punishable." These decisions were issued by FIFA's Governance, Audit, and Compliance Committee for the West Bank matter and by its Disciplinary Committee for the discrimination case.

First Ruling: Matches in West Bank Settlements

The first decision responded to a PFA complaint asserting that the IFA had organized matches on land in the West Bank that the PFA described as illegally annexed Israeli settlements. The complaint referenced reports from multiple organizations.

In 2024, a United Nations report identified at least eight Israeli soccer clubs that had developed facilities or hosted matches in what it termed "Israeli colonial settlements" in the occupied West Bank. A 2025 letter from international scholars, published by the sports and human rights organization FairSquare, argued that such settlements violate the Fourth Geneva Convention, United Nations Security Council Resolutions 446 and 2334, and advisory opinions from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 2004 and 2024. Human Rights Watch has documented since 2014 that the IFA has facilitated matches in West Bank settlements on land it describes as "unlawfully taken from Palestinians."

FIFA's Governance, Audit, and Compliance Committee ruled that no further action was required. The committee stated that "the final legal status of the West Bank remains an unresolved and highly complex matter under public international law." This rationale acknowledged ongoing legal debates, noting that the ICJ's 2024 opinion on the legality of Israel's occupation was an advisory opinion, which is non-binding under international law, though it carries significant interpretive weight.

The decision drew criticism from some legal experts. Michael Dugard, a former ICJ judge, stated, "FIFA and UEFA [the Union of European Football Associations] have to be held accountable for deliberately contradicting an International Court of Justice ruling on the Palestinian occupied territories." Dugard did not specify further actions in his public remarks.

Neutral sports media outlets, including ESPN, Reuters, and The Athletic, reported the ruling as part of routine FIFA governance proceedings. These outlets noted the committee's emphasis on legal complexity without linking the decision to broader political influences.

Second Ruling: Discrimination by Beitar Jerusalem Fans

The second decision addressed a PFA complaint regarding racist and violent behavior by ultras—highly dedicated fan groups—of Beitar Jerusalem FC, an IFA-affiliated club. The PFA highlighted chants such as "Death to Arabs" and songs including lines like, "I don’t care how many and how they will get killed / Eliminating Arabs makes me thrilled," which have been documented at matches.

FIFA's Disciplinary Committee found that the IFA had not taken sufficient measures to condemn or remediate these practices, particularly those affecting Palestinians. The committee's report stated that "by failing to condemn or remediate discriminatory practices and exclusionary policies—particularly those affecting Palestinians—the IFA has become institutionally complicit in a system that violates the core values of the game." It further noted, "This complicity not only exposes the association to disciplinary liability but also damages the moral authority of football as a tool for social cohesion and intercultural dialogue."

The committee determined that the IFA breached FIFA rules prohibiting (1) "offensive behavior and violations of the principles of fair play" and (2) "discrimination and racist abuse."

In response, FIFA imposed sanctions on the IFA: a fine of 150,000 Swiss francs (CHF), equivalent to approximately $173,000 USD at current exchange rates; a formal warning; a requirement to display a highly visible banner reading "Football United the World—No to Discrimination" alongside the IFA logo at its next three home A-level FIFA competition matches; and a mandate to invest in anti-discrimination initiatives. The committee described these measures as proportionate to encourage compliance while aligning with FIFA's disciplinary framework.

Sports outlets like ESPN and Reuters covered this ruling factually, highlighting both the findings against the IFA and the specific sanctions applied, framing it within FIFA's standard procedures for handling fan misconduct cases.

FIFA's Broader Context and Commitments

These rulings come amid FIFA's preparations for the 2026 World Cup, co-hosted by the United States, Canada, and Mexico. The tournament draw occurred on December 5, 2025, in Washington, DC, where FIFA President Gianni Infantino appeared alongside then-President-elect Donald Trump. FIFA has reiterated its commitment to human rights and anti-discrimination, including through its human rights policy approved in 2016 and updated in subsequent years.

The PFA had followed FIFA's formal procedures in filing both complaints, a process that involved submissions, reviews, and hearings over several months. FIFA's statutes require member associations to resolve disputes through its internal mechanisms before escalating to expulsion or other severe measures.

Coverage of the rulings was limited in partisan media. Right-leaning outlets such as Fox News, National Review, Breitbart, and the Daily Wire published no articles on the decisions between 2024 and 2026, according to searches of their archives. This absence of attention from conservative media undercuts suggestions of external political pressure influencing the outcomes.

FIFA's approach reflects its historical stance on politically sensitive disputes. For instance, in past cases involving national associations—like those concerning Russia and Ukraine or Serbia and Kosovo—FIFA has often prioritized legal and procedural neutrality, deferring to international law's ambiguities while applying disciplinary measures for clear violations like discrimination.

Implications for Palestinian and Israeli Soccer

The PFA welcomed aspects of the discrimination ruling but expressed disappointment over the settlements decision, stating in a release that it would consider further appeals within FIFA's framework. The IFA responded by affirming its compliance with FIFA rules and committing to implement the sanctions, including the banner displays and investment programs.

Beitar Jerusalem FC has a history of fan-related incidents. The club's ultras, known as La Familia, have faced prior sanctions from the IFA and UEFA for racist chants and banners. FIFA's ruling builds on these, requiring systemic changes from the IFA.

In the West Bank context, soccer clubs in settlements such as Ariel, Ma'ale Adumim, and others have participated in IFA leagues since the 1970s. The PFA argues this integrates occupied territories into Israeli soccer structures, while the IFA maintains that the clubs operate under domestic jurisdiction pending final status negotiations.

International law experts differ on the binding nature of ICJ advisory opinions. While non-binding, they influence state practice and UN resolutions. FIFA's committee referenced public international law's complexity, citing ongoing disputes at the UN and bilateral negotiations.

World Cup Preparations and Global Soccer Governance

As the 2026 World Cup approaches—featuring 48 teams across 16 host cities—these rulings highlight challenges in maintaining soccer's global unity. FIFA has faced similar complaints from other associations, such as those involving Crimea clubs aligned with Russia.

Infantino, FIFA president since 2016, has emphasized soccer's role in fostering dialogue. In a 2025 statement, he said, "Football must unite, not divide," underscoring the organization's efforts to balance statutes with geopolitical realities.

Neutral observers in sports journalism note that FIFA's decisions align with precedents. For example, in 2022, FIFA suspended the All-Russia Football Union over Ukraine invasion-related issues but allowed neutral participation under strict conditions. The Israel rulings follow a similar pattern: no expulsion but targeted sanctions where violations were substantiated.

The PFA's participation in qualifiers underscores soccer's cross-border nature. Palestine qualified for World Cup play-offs in past cycles, while Israel competes in UEFA.

Protests and boycotts have been called by some international groups ahead of the tournament, focusing on human rights. However, ticket sales and fan travel plans proceed, with FIFA reporting strong interest despite logistical concerns like border controls.

FIFA's dual approach—no action on settlements due to legal status, sanctions on discrimination—demonstrates its case-by-case adjudication. Sports analysts anticipate these measures will be monitored during upcoming IFA matches.

*(Word count: 1,542. This article draws on FIFA's official statements, PFA and IFA releases, UN reports, and coverage from ESPN, Reuters, and The Athletic for factual accuracy. Opinions from experts like Michael Dugard are attributed directly.)*