On February 16, 2026, the world of football found itself at the center of a legal and ethical storm, as a coalition of Palestinian footballers, clubs, and advocacy groups filed an unprecedented complaint against the heads of FIFA and UEFA at the International Criminal Court (ICC). The 120-page document, submitted to the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor, accuses FIFA president Gianni Infantino and UEFA president Aleksander Čeferin of “aiding and abetting war crimes (specifically, the transfer of civilian population into occupied territories) and crimes against humanity (specifically, apartheid),” according to Al Jazeera and Reuters.
This historic filing marks the first time that top sports executives have been named in such grave allegations at the ICC, a move that could set a legal precedent for holding leaders of powerful sporting bodies accountable for their actions—or inactions—on the global stage. The complaint’s timing and content reflect a growing chorus of voices demanding that international sports organizations be held to the same standards of justice as states and corporations.
The core of the complaint centers on the ongoing conflict in Gaza. According to the documents, Israel’s military campaign has led to the deaths of 1,007 Palestinian sportspeople and the destruction of 184 sports facilities, with an additional 81 facilities damaged. The term “athleticide” has been used by advocates to describe the specific targeting and devastation of Palestinian sports infrastructure and personnel. While the Israeli Football Association (IFA) is not directly accused of perpetrating these acts, its ties to clubs based in illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank—and their participation in both domestic and international competitions—are at the heart of the legal challenge.
Critics argue that by permitting these settlement-based clubs to compete, FIFA and UEFA are effectively normalizing Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory. The complaint points out that this is in direct violation of a 2024 International Court of Justice (ICJ) pronouncement and a United Nations General Assembly resolution, both of which found the Israeli settlements to be “unlawful” and demanded an immediate halt to new settlement activities and the evacuation of all settlers from the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The referral further highlights that Article 64(2) of FIFA’s statutes prohibits member associations and their clubs from playing on the territory of another member association without approval—a rule allegedly ignored in this case.
“When an occupying power is blatantly committing war crimes by creating civilian settlements in occupied territory, the rest of the world—including states, corporations and international sporting organisations—is required to ensure the enforcement of international law by doing everything in their power to bring the violations to a swift end,” Michael Lynk, former UN special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territory, told Al Jazeera. He added, “Yet, FIFA and UEFA are sportswashing the illegal Israeli occupation by allowing the Israeli Football Association to include clubs based in the illegal settlements to participate in their domestic leagues. Nothing could be further from the rules of fairness and equity.”
The complaint does not target FIFA or UEFA as organizations, since private entities cannot be prosecuted before the ICC. Instead, it focuses on Infantino and Čeferin as individuals responsible for policy decisions. The filing alleges that their refusal to suspend the IFA or the settlement-based clubs, despite repeated calls and detailed reports urging intervention, constitutes deliberate complicity in violations of international law. The argument is that their inaction “aids and abets” both the transfer of civilian populations into occupied territories—prohibited under Article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the Rome Statute—and the maintenance of apartheid, defined as a crime against humanity under Article 7(1)(j).
FIFA president Gianni Infantino, for his part, has publicly resisted calls to ban Israeli teams from international football. He described such a move as “a defeat,” and argued in favor of enshrining in FIFA’s statutes that no country should ever be banned from playing football due to the actions of its political leaders. “I am in favour of enshrining in FIFA statutes that no country should ever be banned from playing football because of the acts of their political leaders,” Infantino said in a recent interview, as reported by Reuters. This stance has drawn sharp criticism, especially when contrasted with FIFA’s decision to suspend Russia from all competitions in 2022 following its invasion of Ukraine, and UEFA’s earlier ban on Crimean clubs after Russia’s occupation of the peninsula in 2014.
The complaint underscores this perceived double standard, arguing that claims of “political neutrality” ring hollow when past precedents show otherwise. The lucrative nature of global football—an industry worth hundreds of millions of dollars and watched by some five billion fans—adds to the gravity of the situation. With so much at stake, the reluctance of FIFA and UEFA to act against Israel is seen by critics as a calculated move to avoid the economic and reputational fallout that would follow a ban.
The ICC’s next steps will be closely watched. The Office of the Prosecutor is set to conduct a preliminary examination to determine whether the court has jurisdiction, whether the case is admissible, and whether pursuing it would serve the interests of justice. If these criteria are met, the ICC could open a formal investigation, gather evidence, and potentially issue arrest warrants or summonses for Infantino and Čeferin. Such a development would be unprecedented in the world of sports governance and could have far-reaching implications for how international law is applied to non-state actors.
It’s worth noting that while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has so far managed to avoid ICC arrest warrants by steering clear of Rome Statute signatory states, Infantino and Čeferin would face significant challenges in maintaining their global roles if subjected to similar warrants—assuming the ICC’s decisions are enforced.
At the heart of this unfolding drama is the question of whether sports can ever truly be apolitical. The narrative of neutrality, long championed by FIFA and UEFA, is being challenged by those who argue that sports organizations wield immense cultural and economic power, and therefore bear responsibility for upholding international law. As the complaint makes its way through the ICC’s processes, the world will be watching to see if the pursuit of justice can penetrate even the most influential bastions of global sport.
For now, the ball is in the ICC’s court—and the outcome could redefine the relationship between sports, politics, and the law for years to come.