More than a tournament: The World Cup and Politics
By Beatriz Santos Mayo
As the sun set over the Azteca Stadium, thousands of Mexican and South African fans raised their flags. For a few moments, football seemed to create its own world, one where borders disappear, and nations meet to enjoy sports. However, this is far from reality. Headlines for months have been labelling the 2026 World Cup as the most political in history.
Visa?
The World Cup is being hosted, for the first time, by three nations: the United States, Mexico, and Canada. However, the Trump administration’s strict immigration policies are shaping the national conversation, and questions about who is allowed to enter the country have become part of the tournament itself.
One of the first controversies involved Somali referee Omar Abdulkadir Artan. Artan, who had been named African Men’s Referee of the Year, was denied entry into the United States after arriving at the border in Miami. According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, he was considered 'inadmissible' after additional screening related to background verification. FIFA later confirmed that he would not be able to train or officiate the tournament. They argued that: 'They do not intervene in host country immigration processes'. Somali officials argued that denying entry to one of Africa’s most respected referees damaged the principles of fairness and equal opportunity that football claims to represent.
But referees were not the only victims of the American Visa regime; many supporters also struggled to reach the tournament, among them many Argentinians. After numerous fans were denied entry in the U.S., one local company even launched a campaign offering free televisions to supporters who could prove their visa rejection.
Luck also did not follow the Iranian national team. Just days before the tournament, Washington and Tehran reached a framework agreement aimed at reducing tensions and opening the door to negotiations after a period of military escalation. Despite these talks, the Iranian team has been forced by the Administration to adapt to a difficult schedule, arriving from Tijuana (Mexico) to the United States just one day before matches instead of having time to train and adjust. The Iranian Football Federation argued that these measures violated the principle of equal treatment in international sport and announced that it would submit a formal complaint to FIFA.
No China, No Party
We have Cape Verde, Côte d'Ivoire, and even Curaçao participating in the tournament! But where is China? The country´s team failed to qualify, again. A decade ago, Beijing launched a so-called 'football revolution', with investment flowing into clubs, facilities, and youth development, but the project never delivered the expected results due to a combination of state interference, economic pressure, and even the pandemic. Still, China´s influence is becoming harder to ignore. Despite not being on the pitch, the Chinese companies remain among the biggest commercial partnerships in the competition. Brands like Lenovo, Hisense, Mengniu, and Wanda account for nearly one-fifth of FIFA's confirmed sponsorship revenue, firmly establishing China as a dominant force off the pitch.
Money, Money, Money
If you have been following the tournament for a while, you may also be a bit tired of those hydration breaks. For the first time in World Cup history, FIFA has introduced three-minute hydration breaks in every match, regardless of stadium temperature. Several coaches and players have questioned whether the breaks are needed in every match. United States coach Mauricio Pochettino, for example, argued that the pauses only make sense when the weather becomes truly extreme. The Paraguay coach, Gustavo Alfaro, clearly stated that 'the game is slipping away from us'.
Apart from the opportunity to change tactics mid-game, they present a commercial opportunity. More pauses mean more space for broadcasters to sell advertising. In the U.S, FOX has reportedly been charging at least $200,000 for a 30-second advertisement during these hydration breaks. Prices are expected to rise even further as the tournament moves towards the finals, particularly for games involving the US national team.
Next World Cup?
Even though we are still in the group phase of this year's World Cup, a lot of attention is being diverted to the 2030 World Cup. Spain, Portugal, and Morocco are jointly staging the tournament, but behind the scenes, a quiet rivalry is intensifying between Spain and Morocco for the final match.
Spanish officials have been openly confident, with the national federation insisting the match will be held in Spain, likely at either the newly renovated Santiago Bernabéu or Barcelona’s Camp Nou. Madrid is widely viewed as the frontrunner; however, FIFA insiders have even described the race as 'effectively 50-50' between Spain and Morocco.
On the one hand, Spain hosting the final would reinforce its long-standing status as a global football powerhouse. On the other hand, Morocco’s bid is tied to a wider national project of modernisation and international visibility, where mega-events like the World Cup serve as instruments of economic development and soft power.
Beyond the question of prestige, the costs of hosting the World Cup are enormous. Previous tournaments have shown that stadiums and facilities built for the competition can become expensive burdens after the Cup ends. The same resources could potentially be invested in other public priorities instead.
But perhaps, for now, what we should focus on is: who will lift the trophy? After all the politics, money, and controversies surrounding the tournament, football will still decide its own winner on the pitch.
