Both sides, in good faith

The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.

The case for

Those who welcomed President Trump's prominent role see it as a fitting mark of respect for a global sporting milestone hosted on American soil, arguing that heads of state have long taken part in trophy ceremonies as a gesture of national pride and goodwill towards the host nation and competing countries alike. From this view, his visible presence and involvement in the celebrations helped elevate the profile of football in the United States and gave the achievement the recognition many felt it deserved. Supporters would also note that attending such events is a normal part of a leader's public duties and should not be read as anything more than that.

The case against

Others felt that a sitting president taking such a central place in the trophy celebrations risked overshadowing the players' achievement, turning a moment meant to belong to the athletes and fans into something more about him. Critics of this kind argue that sport, and especially a final as fiercely contested as this one, ought to remain a shared, largely apolitical occasion, and that cameras repeatedly cutting to a polarising political figure during play distracted from the drama on the pitch. For them, restraint and a lower profile from political leaders at such moments would better preserve the spirit of the occasion for competitors and supporters alike.