As Canada, Mexico, and the United States prepare to host the 2026 FIFA World Cup tournament this summer, the international community braces for what could potentially be one of the most controversial international sporting events in recent memory. Sports have historically been a medium for cross-cultural exchange and a tool for transcending political divisions through healthy competition. While there is ongoing debate over whether international sporting events can ever be free of political intervention, there is no doubt that some competitions on the field are more politicized than others.
The FIFA World Cup is an international soccer (“footbal” for those abroad) tournament that brings together national teams from around the globe to compete every four years. Since the inaugural tournament in 1930, the World Cup has grown from a meager 13-team competition to now include 48 teams competing in over a hundred matches.
Nearing its centennial anniversary in 2030, the World Cup has had a number of notable instances of politics intersecting with competition on the field. The second ever World Cup, hosted by Italy in 1934, is largely remembered as a propaganda campaign to glorify Mussolini’s fascist party. The host country went on to win the tournament despite reports of the regime handpicking referees for Italy’s matches, leading to a number of controversial results. Similarly, the 1978 World Cup in Argentina brought international attention to the host country government’s human rights abuses involving thousands of political prisoners. In a powerful display of protest, the Dutch team opted to participate in a local protest of Argentina’s junta regime rather than receive their runner-up medals following the final match. Most recently, in preparation for hosting the latest World Cup in 2022, Qatar found itself at the center of controversy over its mistreatment of thousands of migrant workers and other vulnerable groups. Clearly, politics have long conflicted with the image of neutrality that FIFA strives to uphold.
Much of the narrative leading up to the 2026 FIFA World Cup centers around the implications of several controversial policies of the United States. While international sporting events like the FIFA World Cup are meant to unite people from diverse backgrounds, the United States government is arguably using the event, instead, to promote a divisive domestic and foreign policy agenda.
The Trump administration’s domestic immigration enforcement and involvement in World Cup planning and communications is creating uncertainty for fans hoping to attend games in the United States this summer. First, World Cup fans are at risk of implicating themselves in the Trump administration’s accelerated crackdown on undocumented immigration. The expanded operations of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and its increasing presence in American cities is concerning for both international and domestic soccer fans. Protests over the heavy presence of ICE agents in Minneapolis have led to federal agents fatally shooting two American citizens. Additionally, the Trump administration has boasted that ICE will not rule out conducting raids during official World Cup events. Violence and chaos caused by the increased ICE presence in American cities and protests in response have contributed to fans’ trepidations about attending matches this summer. Also, President Trump has suggested relocating World Cup matches scheduled to be held in cities like Boston and Seattle. The administration has seemingly targeted these cities for political reasons, with President Trump using the terms “radical left” and “communist” to describe each city’s respective mayor. Despite these rebukes, it seems unlikely that the Trump administration will have the authority to relocate matches as the host sites are contracted directly with FIFA. While this may not seem like an immediate threat to the sanctity of tournament play, it represents the Trump administration’s willingness to use seemingly apolitical opportunities as “culture war” tools to shape global perceptions of the United States.
The 2026 FIFA World Cup will also be the first time the tournament is hosted by three countries, with matches taking place in Canada, Mexico, and the United States. Trilateral cooperation between the host countries is crucial for the successful execution of World Cup events. However, recent U.S. foreign policy decisions have jeopardized relationships with its neighbors to the north and south.
Recent tensions between the United States and Mexico are largely related to transactional drug enforcement policies and threats of military force. In a recent interview, President Trump claimed that he would begin targeting drug cartels with land strikes in Mexico. The Mexican President has repeatedly made clear that they will not tolerate any unilateral U.S. military operations in Mexico. In apparent attempts to appease the United States, the Mexican government has begun handing over suspected cartel members to the U.S. and recently conducted an operation killing a cartel leader in Mexico. However, it remains unclear how the United States will react to Mexico’s attempts at drug enforcement. The recent U.S. strike on Venezuela and the abduction of President Maduro, widely considered to be violations of international law, have left many countries in Latin America in fear that they may be the next target for the United States’ military aggression. Meanwhile, polling suggests that over 80% of Mexicans are opposed to any U.S. military action on Mexican soil. The United States’ aggressive drug enforcement policy and rhetoric, and unilateral military action in the region is seen by many as a potential threat to Mexico’s sovereignty and self-determination.
The United States has also initiated tense relations with Canada surrounding its trade policies and threats to Canada’s territorial integrity. First, the Trump administration’s tariff policies have caused a rift in the United States’ relationship with a long-time trade partner in Canada. Leading up to the imposition of American tariffs on Canada, roughly 75% of Canadian exports went to the U.S. However, these tariffs have reduced Canadian exports to the U.S. by about 10%, forcing Canada to develop alternate trade relations and abandon well-established supply chains with the U.S. These trade policies represent a clear trend of U.S. protectionism that is forcing allies to look elsewhere for cooperative economic relations.
However, the Trump administration’s divisive trade policies may not even be the most urgent threat to Canada. President Trump has repeatedly made comments about annexing Canada as the “51st state,” even in the presence of Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney. The President has also referred to former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as “governor” of the “Great State of Canada.” In response to U.S. tariffs and threats on the territorial integrity of foreign countries, Prime Minister Carney directly challenged the policies of the Trump administration with his speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos. In his speech, Carney described the new world order in which “great powers” like the U.S. have abandoned their commitments to international institutions and norms in exchange for pursuing their interests through unilateral coercive action. The Trump administration’s actions and the responses from other world leaders suggest a growing fracture in the United States’ relationships with its neighbors.
While these divisive actions absolutely raise alarm bells for those in the political sphere, they will likely also have ripple effects for the common World Cup fan. For fans travelling a long way to attend World Cup events, the last thing they want is for their experience to be overshadowed by political drama. For fans from Mexico and Canada, the looming prospect of United States interventionism threatens to draw attention away from their team’s performance on the field. In a recent poll, 48% of Canadian adults indicated that they believe the U.S. represents the biggest threat to world peace, compared to only 29% choosing Russia and 10% picking China. The divisive rhetoric spewed by the Trump administration does not provide fans with any hope for camaraderie between the host countries in this summer’s events.
Not only have the Trump administration’s policies put the United States’ neighbors on high alert, but they have warned all international fans about the upcoming World Cup. First, the U.S. has implemented visa restrictions and travel bans limiting the entry of people from 39 different countries, including four countries whose teams will be playing in the 2026 World Cup: Haiti, Iran, Senegal, and Cote d’Ivoire. These restrictive travel bans have been harshly criticized by international fans who hope to watch their teams play at the World Cup this summer. Although Haiti qualified for the World Cup for the first time in over 50 years, most Haitian supporters will be unable to watch their team play in the U.S. because of the current travel restrictions. These restrictive travel regulations have already impacted World Cup proceedings as the Iranian delegation threatened to boycott the World Cup group draw in Washington, D.C. after the U.S. denied visas to certain members of its soccer federation. Clearly, travel bans and visa restrictions could impact both the fan experience and the capacity for intergovernmental cooperation in executing World Cup events.
Amassed international concerns have caused backlash against the United States and fears about a potentially hostile fan experience at the World Cup. In a recent statement, ex-FIFA president Sepp Blatter expressed his support for a proposed fan boycott of World Cup matches held in the U.S. He joins a community of international fans who are considering watching the World Cup events from home amidst growing uncertainty about safety and security.
Given the international controversy surrounding United States foreign and domestic policy under the Trump administration, it isn’t at all clear whether the 2026 FIFA World Cup will be an event that fosters unity. Sadly, the event may prove to be another example of recent U.S. catalysts for divisiveness and anxiety. When left uninhibited, sports have the power to unite people from diverse backgrounds. However, it is apparent that politics often injects itself into international sporting events like the World Cup. It is the responsibility of governments not to weaponize sporting events for their own political gains. Ultimately, the world will judge the outcome of the tournament not by the actions of politicians, or even the outcomes of the matches played, but by who is welcomed to safely participate.
Image source: openverse
