Football as bait and the politicization of sport: what lies behind Trump’s statement about a ‘good incentive’ for Russia to end the war.

For the fourth year, a full-scale war has been going on in Ukraine, and all this time there have been almost continuous political events and consultations, informal contacts and public talks between world leaders with promises to stop it or at least bring a ceasefire closer. Donald Trump is particularly active in the topic of “quick peace”, who consistently avoids direct criticism of Russia and has stated at various times that he can end the war in 24 hours, later – that he will need several weeks, later – that peace will come in May this year. None of these statements had either a concrete mechanism or public confirmation from other parties. In reality, hostilities are only intensifying: the intensity of shelling is increasing, soldiers and civilians are dying, cities and villages continue to be destroyed. In this context, Trump made a new unexpected statement that cannot be ignored.

Donald Trump’s Statement on “Good Stimulus”

At a joint press conference with FIFA President Gianni Infantino, US President Donald Trump made an unexpected statement. Responding to journalists’ questions about the possibility of the Russian national team returning to participate in the 2026 World Cup, Trump admitted that he was not informed about its suspension from international football competitions after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. At the same time, he said that such a prospect could become a “good incentive” for the Russian Federation to end the war against Ukraine.

“Can they be admitted if there is peace? That can be a good incentive, right? We want them to stop. Up to five thousand young people are killed every week. It is impossible to believe. Mostly Russian and Ukrainian soldiers. Also people in cities. Terrible things happen. We are going to stop this war.” said Trump.

It should be noted that these words were uttered against the background of the already started European selection for the 2026 World Cup, which is to be hosted by the USA, Canada and Mexico. Russia is currently banned from participating, but there are calls from it to admit the national team to the World Cup through the so-called wild card as a gesture of “restoring justice” and “avoiding the politicization of sports.” In a statement distributed through Russian sports and political channels, it is said that such exclusion “was not of a sporting nature” and therefore should be canceled.

In turn, Gianni Infantino is not the first to announce the possibility of Russia’s return to international football. A few months before this press conference, he hinted at “the need to keep the door open” and “not to turn away from countries” in conflict. Such statements have repeatedly caused outrage in Ukraine, in particular from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Football Federation of Ukraine.

What Trump’s statement shows

Donald Trump’s statement should be considered not only in the context of international politics, but also in the broader plane of his rhetoric — a hybrid combination of show, provocation, political signal and populism. Combining football with war is an attempt to operate with images that are perceived with great interest by a mass audience. The World Cup is a global, high-profile event that has indeed been used as an instrument of geopolitical prestige in the past. Therefore, Trump tried to show that the conditional rehabilitation of Russia on the international stage (especially in sports) could become a tool for promoting peace. But the problem is that this formulation of the question actually removes the responsibility from the Russian Federation and turns the restoration of the usual forms of interaction into a “gingerbread”.

It is quite obvious that when he spoke about the admission of Russia to the World Cup as a “good incentive”, Trump did not mean that one of the sides would win, stop crimes or change the regime. He spoke of an incentive that does not change the behavior of the Russian Federation, but rather encourages it to reconsider by offering a reward. This is radically different from the idea of ​​peace, where war ends with the withdrawal of troops and justice, rather than a return to the international arena at the expense of a prestigious sports ticket.

The idea of ​​”giving Russia something to make it want to stop the war” deeply contradicts the logic of international law and justice. Participation in sports competitions cannot and should not be a subject of bargaining, if we are talking about full-scale aggression, war crimes, deportations, killing of civilians. This is the rhetoric of appeasement, which was repeatedly applied to aggressors in the 20th century, with known disastrous consequences. It should be noted that the idea of ​​”giving Russia something” in exchange for peace is not really new. It has already been offered several times in different configurations: the lifting of sanctions, negotiations on the “neutrality of Ukraine”, cancellation of military aid to our country. But now, for the first time, Trump openly spoke about rehabilitation through sports. This practice creates a precedent — if a state can wage a war and then simply receive a “gingerbread” in the form of admission to the championship, it destroys the very idea of ​​sanctions, accountability and long-term isolation for war crimes.

It is especially revealing that such a statement was made against the background of the already launched European selection for the championship, from which Russia is excluded. This means that the return of the Russian national team is possible only with a special invitation, that is, with a political decision. Trump is ready to initiate or support him. But this begs the question: if such a possibility is being discussed, doesn’t that mean that Trump himself is assuming that it will last until at least 2026? Otherwise, this deal simply wouldn’t make sense.

So, the words of the US president contradict his own promises. He publicly stated more than once that he would be able to end the war between Russia and Ukraine within the first month after returning to power, then in May. However, at the same time, he offers the return of Russia to the big sports game precisely in exchange for the end of the war, that is, somewhere on the horizon in the next few years. In this construction, war is not for him a critical reality that must be stopped, but only a space for a future agreement that fits into his negotiating style.

In general, it is characteristic of Trump to build his messages in such a way that they work simultaneously for several audiences. That is, the game is played on several fronts. To some voters, he presents the image of a “peacemaker” who is looking for non-standard ways to end the war without resorting to conflicts. At the same time, this is an indirect signal for those who sympathize with the policy of isolationism or are opposed to supporting Ukraine: they say, instead of supplying weapons, you can simply negotiate through football. And for the Kremlin, the message is clear: a return to the big world is possible if you sign a ceasefire. Not a peace treaty, not guarantees, not punishing the guilty, but only a cessation of hostilities. In this context, to discuss peace as a function of participation in a football tournament is a deliberate distortion of reality, in which victims are replaced by abstractions and responsibility by conditional political points.

The key thing is that Ukraine disappears as a subject in this situation. Negotiations, conditional scenarios, political signals take place without her voice. Decisions about peace, according to the logic of Trump’s statement, can be made between Washington, Moscow and, in this case, even FIFA. The war itself in his rhetoric is presented as a tragedy of “two sides”, without specifying who attacked and who defended. And this is not a rhetorical error, but a choice in favor of symmetry where it does not exist. In such a situation, peace appears not as a result of negotiations taking into account the position of the victim of aggression, but as an agreement between great powers. At the same time, Ukraine once again acts not as a subject, but as an object of someone else’s bargaining, and this is deeply humiliating for a country that resists and pays for it with the lives of its citizens.

Finally, the very formulation of the question reveals a pragmatic but dangerous transformation of diplomacy: from values ​​to agreements. If the war ends only when the Russian Federation is offered something, then the international order has finally been replaced by the policy of blackmail. And when this thesis comes from the mouth of the US president, it is not just the position of one person, but a signal that in 2026 Russia may see the tricolor at the world stadium. But not because she has changed, but because someone has decided that she can be dealt with again.

Politicization of sport in the context of history

The politicization of sports is not a side effect, but a deliberate tool that has long been used by various states for strategic purposes. Despite the declaration of the “non-political” nature of sports competitions, key events in the history of world sports have repeatedly demonstrated that, in fact, sports have long become a field of geopolitical competition. Not as a metaphor, but a direct tool of foreign policy, propaganda, blackmail and legitimization of regimes.

One of the most prominent examples is the 1936 Olympic Games in Nazi Germany. Adolf Hitler’s regime turned the West into a showcase for a “renovated” state, concealing the persecution of Jews, the deployment of concentration camps, and preparations for war. Sports competitions became a backdrop for the demonstration of racist ideology, architectural splendor and militarized order. The victories of German athletes were used as proof of “Aryan supremacy”, and defeats were hushed up or explained by conspiracies. Although the performance of the African-American Jesse Owens in Berlin (4 gold medals) broke racial clichés, the very fact that the world community did not boycott the games in a country that violated all the basics of human rights only confirmed that sports can cover up crimes.

In 1980, the situation changed. The USA boycotted the Olympics in Moscow after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. More than 60 countries followed them. That is, sport has become a means of pressure. The response to this was the boycott of the 1984 Los Angeles Games by the Soviet Union and its satellites. The two superpowers who declared peace and equality through sports have effectively recognized that geopolitics is more important than sports neutrality. It was a blow to athletes, but at the same time it was a recognition that international tournaments have long since turned into a zone of strategic confrontation.

The politicization of sports works not only in the form of a boycott, but also in the form of a symbolic return. An example of this is the emergence of the Serbian national team at major tournaments after the Yugoslav wars and how political processes affected the team’s symbolism, name and interpretation. Participation in competitions in such cases is considered as confirmation of legitimacy, return to the world club, as well as “pardon” at the political level. The same can be said about China and the 2008 Olympics in Beijing: the games were used to show off muscle, economic growth and a hidden authoritarian development model.

Today, the most telling example is Russia. Despite large-scale doping scandals, repeated violations, disqualification of entire federations, Moscow continues to return to the big game — under neutral flags, through arbitration, with the help of political lobbying. For Russia, sport is part of the propaganda apparatus, it is used as a proof of “greatness” and “respect”, even when the international community imposes sanctions. However, the struggle for the right to participate in competitions is not about the game, but about status. That is why Trump’s calls to return Russia to football tournaments during the war with Ukraine are part of a wider game, where the bet is on geopolitical “forgiveness without repentance”.

The politicization of sports has important consequences — it blurs the line between right and manipulation. In addition, it teaches the state: instead of changing the policy, you can just wait – and the return to normality will happen through a sports tournament. Politicization also hurts athletes, who have to pay for governments’ decisions, but at the same time forces organizations such as the IOC or FIFA to act as arbiters of issues they are not equipped to deal with, from human rights to war crimes.

Therefore, sport is no longer considered as a separate sphere, it has become part of the state system. If it is bidding for participation in championships instead of discussing reparations, de-occupation or reparations, it means only one thing: political logic has finally supplanted moral logic. And if this has become the norm, then sport has ceased to be a game. Now it’s about influence, control and the ability to dictate your reality through stadiums.

Trump’s statement about a “good incentive” for the Russian Federation to end the war against Ukraine is another confirmation of how sports structures that declare themselves to be non-political are increasingly becoming a space for political gestures and global agreements. At the same time, Trump quite organically uses such platforms to broadcast his approaches to international politics: flexible, transactional and as pragmatic as possible, even when it comes to war and death.