FIFA’s Trump Tower Office Lease Raises Questions Ahead of Major Football Tournaments
A reported office lease between FIFA and Trump Tower in New York has brought renewed attention to the relationship between football’s governing body and US President Donald Trump. The agreement, signed in May 2025 by FIFA president Gianni Infantino, concerns office space in a building owned by the Trump family and managed by members of the family, including the president’s son Eric Trump.
Details of the deal were reported by the French newspaper Le Monde, which said it reviewed internal documents relating to the contract. The arrangement has prompted questions about how FIFA selected the location, whether the price reflects the market and what safeguards were used to manage potential conflicts of interest. FIFA, for its part, says the rent is in line with market rates and that the offices support preparations for upcoming international competitions.
What the reported FIFA lease covers
According to Le Monde, FIFA agreed to pay $4 million—approximately €3.57 million—for 450 square metres of office space over a period of seven years and seven months. The offices are located inside Trump Tower, the 58-storey building on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan.
The length of the lease means the arrangement extends well beyond a single tournament. FIFA has said the New York premises form part of its operational planning for the 2025 FIFA Club World Cup and, chiefly, the 2026 FIFA World Cup, which will be hosted across the United States, Canada and Mexico. Establishing a presence in a major US city could give the organisation a base for coordinating meetings, commercial work and tournament-related activity.
However, the reported contract has attracted scrutiny because of the building’s ownership and the political connections involved. Any commercial agreement between a global sports organisation and a property linked to a sitting president’s family is likely to invite questions about transparency, even when the parties say the terms are commercially reasonable.
Questions over the selection process
One issue highlighted in Le Monde’s reporting is the apparent absence of a public tender. The newspaper said FIFA did not invite competing proposals or conduct a documented comparison of alternative office locations before agreeing to rent space at Trump Tower.
That process has drawn attention because FIFA reportedly used different procedures when establishing offices in Miami for its legal services. The contrast does not, by itself, establish that the New York lease was improper. It does, however, raise a practical question: what criteria did FIFA apply when choosing the site, and how did it determine that the price and terms represented good value?
For organisations with global reach, office decisions can involve more than rent. Location, access to transport, security, staff requirements and proximity to partners may all matter. Still, clear records of the decision-making process help demonstrate that a choice was made for operational reasons rather than personal or political considerations. In this case, the limited information reportedly available about the contract has made it harder for outsiders to assess those factors.
FIFA says the rent reflects market rates
FIFA has told Le Monde that the rental value is consistent with market rates. The newspaper, however, reported that the building had remained empty, a detail that has fuelled further discussion about the circumstances surrounding the agreement.
Vacant space does not automatically mean a lease is unusually priced: commercial property values can depend on the precise location, fit-out, lease duration and services included. But the reported vacancy makes independent comparisons especially relevant. Without detailed information about the property’s condition, the rent structure and any additional costs, the public cannot easily determine how the $4 million figure compares with similar office arrangements in Manhattan.
FIFA’s explanation that the space supports tournament preparations also places the lease in a wider context. The 2026 World Cup is expected to be one of the largest sporting events ever staged, with matches spread across three countries. Coordinating logistics across multiple host cities will require extensive planning, and FIFA is likely to need facilities and staff in the United States well before the opening match. The central question is therefore not simply why FIFA needs offices, but why this particular building and contract were chosen.
Political scrutiny of Infantino and Trump
The lease has emerged amid wider political scrutiny of the relationship between Infantino and Trump. Le Monde reported that the US House of Representatives is investigating links between the FIFA president and the president, adding a parliamentary dimension to questions already being raised about the property deal.
Jamie Raskin, a Democratic representative from Maryland and a member of the House Judiciary Committee, called in September for Infantino to be questioned. Raskin also sought documents concerning the FIFA president’s relationship with the White House. He criticised what he described as a lack of cooperation from both sides, according to the newspaper’s account.
Such scrutiny does not prove wrongdoing by FIFA or either individual. It does mean that the organisation’s decisions may be examined not only as routine business arrangements but also in the context of political access and influence. For FIFA, providing a fuller account of the lease’s approval, pricing and purpose could help address concerns and distinguish operational planning from speculation about personal relationships.
Why transparency matters for football
FIFA’s commercial and administrative choices can have consequences well beyond a single office. The organisation oversees the world’s most prominent football competitions and regularly works with governments, host cities, sponsors and private businesses. Public confidence depends in part on whether those relationships are managed through clear, consistent procedures.
That is particularly important as the United States prepares to host the 2026 World Cup. The tournament will bring substantial investment, international attention and complex coordination across North America. Decisions about offices, suppliers and partnerships will naturally attract interest, especially when they involve politically connected businesses.
At this stage, the reported lease leaves several questions open: whether FIFA considered other properties, how the rent was benchmarked, who approved the agreement and what services are included in the stated amount. More documentation or a detailed public explanation could help clarify those points.
For football supporters, the story is a reminder that the organisation of a major tournament extends far beyond the pitch. The match schedule, team preparation and tournament prediction discussions may dominate headlines, but the business decisions made behind the scenes also shape how events are delivered—and how much trust fans place in the institutions running them.
