FIFA, Global Politics and the 2026 World Cup Is FIFA truly neutral or is it a false illusion?
- 28 April 2026
- SLAM
The FIFA World Cup 2026 will be held from 11 June to 19 July across the United States, Canada, and Mexico – the first tournament hosted by three nations. The “United 2026” bid, led jointly by the US, Canadian, and Mexican football federations, prioritised existing stadiums, reducing the need for new construction.
Beyond logistics and finance, the tournament unfolds amid heightened geopolitical tensions and domestic political scrutiny. FIFA’s statutory commitments to political neutrality and human rights are increasingly tested by evolving realities, including the FIFA President, Gianni Infantino’s ties to figures such as Donald Trump, alongside immigration policies and diplomatic tensions affecting participating nations.
In this first article of a two-part series, Yasin Patel and Caitlin Haberlin-Chambers explore whether FIFA’s claims of political neutrality can currently be upheld in 2026 and whether its governance framework can shield the tournament from external political influence.
Beyond logistics and finance, the tournament unfolds amid heightened geopolitical tensions and domestic political scrutiny. FIFA’s statutory commitments to political neutrality and human rights are increasingly tested by evolving realities, including the FIFA President, Gianni Infantino’s ties to figures such as Donald Trump, alongside immigration policies and diplomatic tensions affecting participating nations.
In this first article of a two-part series, Yasin Patel and Caitlin Haberlin-Chambers explore whether FIFA’s claims of political neutrality can currently be upheld in 2026 and whether its governance framework can shield the tournament from external political influence.
1. Political neutrality of FIFA
Article 15.1 of the FIFA Code of Ethics (‘FCE’) mandates officials to remain ‘politically neutral’. First articulated in the 2012 edition, and reaffirmed in the 2016 version, this principle is intended to preserve the integrity of football’s global governance and to ensure that the organisation does not become a vehicle for political messaging or influence. While the rule appears clear in principle, its application is far less straightforward in practice, particularly where FIFA’s leadership engages with political actors and geopolitical developments beyond the sporting sphere.
The Trump-Infantino Nexus
Since assuming the presidency of FIFA in 2016, Gianni Infantino has overseen World Cups in Russia (2018) and Qatar (2022), and now the forthcoming 2026 tournament. His tenure has coincided with a period of significant geopolitical instability, including the war in Ukraine, the ongoing conflict in Gaza and now the war in Iran.
Within this context, scrutiny has intensified around Infantino’s relationship with Trump. While engagement between sporting bodies and political leaders is not inherently problematic, the visibility and closeness of this relationship raise questions about FIFA’s ability to maintain the political neutrality required under Article 15.
Within this context, scrutiny has intensified around Infantino’s relationship with Trump. While engagement between sporting bodies and political leaders is not inherently problematic, the visibility and closeness of this relationship raise questions about FIFA’s ability to maintain the political neutrality required under Article 15.
Neutrality Tested: FIFA’s Selective Engagement
On 13 October 2025, the Gaza Peace Summit in Sharm El Sheikh brought together world leaders to advance a ceasefire and humanitarian measures, including the release of Palestinian prisoners and Israeli hostages. Attending alongside the Arab League, EU, and UN, Infantino’s presence drew scrutiny over FIFA’s commitment to political neutrality.
Infantino justified his participation on the basis that initiatives associated with Trump extended “beyond football”, positioning the sport as a “bridge of communication and hope”. While such rhetoric reflects an increasingly expansive vision of football’s social function, it sits uneasily alongside FIFA’s formal obligation under Article 15 to remain politically neutral. The difficulty is not merely one of participation, but of consistency. Inconsistencies are apparent when contrasted with FIFA’s response to other conflicts. The invasion of Ukraine prompted sanctions against Russian teams, yet Israel’s actions in Gaza – described in severe humanitarian terms by the UN – have drawn no FIFA condemnation, sanctions, or disciplinary measures.
In this context, the legal risk for FIFA lies less in any single appearance or statement, and more in the cumulative perception of selective engagement. Political neutrality under Article 15 is not satisfied solely through formal compliance; it requires consistent and even-handed application across comparable situations. Where materially similar conflicts appear to generate markedly different institutional responses, the credibility of FIFA’s neutrality framework is inevitably called into question. Infantino’s attendance reflects FIFA’s increasing political and diplomatic engagement. However, without consistent action, it risks appearing selective, thereby undermining the organisation’s neutrality. Where there seem to be similar political and geopolitical disputes, FIFA cannot be seen to engage in some political disputes and not others and then remain tight-lipped on issues that arise from the disputes, particularly where there are allegations of human rights breaches, harm to children and vulnerable communities and conflicts where International norms and agreements are breached. To remain silent in such cases speaks volumes: that FIFA will enter the arena but regardless of the human rights breaches they remain “politically neutral”. Unfortunately, that horse has bolted!
Infantino justified his participation on the basis that initiatives associated with Trump extended “beyond football”, positioning the sport as a “bridge of communication and hope”. While such rhetoric reflects an increasingly expansive vision of football’s social function, it sits uneasily alongside FIFA’s formal obligation under Article 15 to remain politically neutral. The difficulty is not merely one of participation, but of consistency. Inconsistencies are apparent when contrasted with FIFA’s response to other conflicts. The invasion of Ukraine prompted sanctions against Russian teams, yet Israel’s actions in Gaza – described in severe humanitarian terms by the UN – have drawn no FIFA condemnation, sanctions, or disciplinary measures.
In this context, the legal risk for FIFA lies less in any single appearance or statement, and more in the cumulative perception of selective engagement. Political neutrality under Article 15 is not satisfied solely through formal compliance; it requires consistent and even-handed application across comparable situations. Where materially similar conflicts appear to generate markedly different institutional responses, the credibility of FIFA’s neutrality framework is inevitably called into question. Infantino’s attendance reflects FIFA’s increasing political and diplomatic engagement. However, without consistent action, it risks appearing selective, thereby undermining the organisation’s neutrality. Where there seem to be similar political and geopolitical disputes, FIFA cannot be seen to engage in some political disputes and not others and then remain tight-lipped on issues that arise from the disputes, particularly where there are allegations of human rights breaches, harm to children and vulnerable communities and conflicts where International norms and agreements are breached. To remain silent in such cases speaks volumes: that FIFA will enter the arena but regardless of the human rights breaches they remain “politically neutral”. Unfortunately, that horse has bolted!
Infantino in Trump’s Pockets
This concern intensified with Infantino’s introduction of the FIFA Peace Prize in November 2025. It was intended to recognise individuals who have undertaken “exceptional and extraordinary actions for peace” and who have “united people across the world.” This initiative aligned with Infantino’s broader vision of using football as a vehicle to foster global unity.
However, the credibility of that vision was quickly called into question. In December 2025, Infantino awarded Trump the first Peace Prize for his role in international agreements, including the Abraham Accords. Infantino said: “This is what we want from a leader — a leader that cares about the people”. Trump’s “America First” approach has widely been characterised as polarising in international relations. Threats to take over Greenland, to replace leadership regimes in South American countries and the implementation of domestic legislation with International ramifications that has subsequently been struck down by the Supreme Court has shown the discontent caused in the USA and Internationally. Military actions and geopolitical tensions involving states such as Iran and Venezuela have further complicated the narrative of unity the award purports to celebrate. Against this backdrop, the decision to honour Trump raises more than reputational concerns. It sharpens the legal question of whether FIFA’s conduct remains consistent with its obligation of political neutrality under Article 15
Further scrutiny followed on 19 February 2026, when Trump held the first Board of Peace (‘BoP’) meeting in Washington. At the event, it was announced that FIFA and the BoP have “signed a landmark partnership agreement that will foster investment into football for the purpose of helping the recovery process in post conflict areas”. FIFA committed to a three-stage plan to support the regeneration of Gaza which would include the construction of a 20,000-seater stadium within three years of work commencing. Infantino, who was in attendance at the inaugural meeting, was investigated by the IOC but cleared of violating the Olympic Charter.
From a regulatory standpoint, the IOC’s decision to clear Infantino resolves only the narrow question of formal compliance, not the broader issue of perceived neutrality. Article 15 FCE is designed not merely to prevent explicit political endorsement but to safeguard FIFA’s institutional independence and credibility. Infantino’s attendance at a politically sensitive forum arguably tests the outer boundaries of that obligation. While the initiative is framed in humanitarian and developmental terms, post-conflict reconstruction in Gaza is inherently geopolitically charged. The IOC’s finding does little to dispel concerns that FIFA’s interpretation of neutrality risks becoming overly formalistic, prioritising technical rule compliance over the purpose of maintaining public confidence in the organisation’s political impartiality.
However, the credibility of that vision was quickly called into question. In December 2025, Infantino awarded Trump the first Peace Prize for his role in international agreements, including the Abraham Accords. Infantino said: “This is what we want from a leader — a leader that cares about the people”. Trump’s “America First” approach has widely been characterised as polarising in international relations. Threats to take over Greenland, to replace leadership regimes in South American countries and the implementation of domestic legislation with International ramifications that has subsequently been struck down by the Supreme Court has shown the discontent caused in the USA and Internationally. Military actions and geopolitical tensions involving states such as Iran and Venezuela have further complicated the narrative of unity the award purports to celebrate. Against this backdrop, the decision to honour Trump raises more than reputational concerns. It sharpens the legal question of whether FIFA’s conduct remains consistent with its obligation of political neutrality under Article 15
Further scrutiny followed on 19 February 2026, when Trump held the first Board of Peace (‘BoP’) meeting in Washington. At the event, it was announced that FIFA and the BoP have “signed a landmark partnership agreement that will foster investment into football for the purpose of helping the recovery process in post conflict areas”. FIFA committed to a three-stage plan to support the regeneration of Gaza which would include the construction of a 20,000-seater stadium within three years of work commencing. Infantino, who was in attendance at the inaugural meeting, was investigated by the IOC but cleared of violating the Olympic Charter.
From a regulatory standpoint, the IOC’s decision to clear Infantino resolves only the narrow question of formal compliance, not the broader issue of perceived neutrality. Article 15 FCE is designed not merely to prevent explicit political endorsement but to safeguard FIFA’s institutional independence and credibility. Infantino’s attendance at a politically sensitive forum arguably tests the outer boundaries of that obligation. While the initiative is framed in humanitarian and developmental terms, post-conflict reconstruction in Gaza is inherently geopolitically charged. The IOC’s finding does little to dispel concerns that FIFA’s interpretation of neutrality risks becoming overly formalistic, prioritising technical rule compliance over the purpose of maintaining public confidence in the organisation’s political impartiality.
FIFA ticket prices
This broader shift is also reflected in FIFA’s commercial approach to the 2026 tournament. FIFA is projected to generate revenues exceeding US$10.9 billion from the 2026 competition. The tournament is also expected to generate substantial economic benefits for the host nations, and in particular the United States, with joint studies with institutions such as the World Trade Organization estimating that the United States alone could achieve economic output of up to US$47 billion.
Against this backdrop of massive financial stakes, controversy has emerged over ticket pricing. The first public ticket sale revealed prices reaching as high as £8,333 – reportedly the most expensive general admission ticket in football history. This stands in stark contrast to assurances made during the original bid, where final tickets were projected to cost no more than approximately £1,174. In response, Football Supporters Europe (‘FSE’) filed a formal complaint against FIFA alleging that such pricing strategies risk excluding ordinary supporters and undermine the accessibility of the tournament.
Unsurprisingly, Infantino has publicly defended the pricing model, asserting that revenues derived from ticket sales will be reinvested into the global development of football, albeit without specifying the proportion or allocation of such funds. While the macroeconomic benefits are significant, they do little to address concerns surrounding affordability, equity, and the integrity of pre-bid commitments, reinforcing wider questions about accessibility and FIFA’s commitment to neutrality and inclusivity.
Against this backdrop of massive financial stakes, controversy has emerged over ticket pricing. The first public ticket sale revealed prices reaching as high as £8,333 – reportedly the most expensive general admission ticket in football history. This stands in stark contrast to assurances made during the original bid, where final tickets were projected to cost no more than approximately £1,174. In response, Football Supporters Europe (‘FSE’) filed a formal complaint against FIFA alleging that such pricing strategies risk excluding ordinary supporters and undermine the accessibility of the tournament.
Unsurprisingly, Infantino has publicly defended the pricing model, asserting that revenues derived from ticket sales will be reinvested into the global development of football, albeit without specifying the proportion or allocation of such funds. While the macroeconomic benefits are significant, they do little to address concerns surrounding affordability, equity, and the integrity of pre-bid commitments, reinforcing wider questions about accessibility and FIFA’s commitment to neutrality and inclusivity.
2. Trump’s Immigration and Foreign Policy
Human Rights: for some but not for all
FIFA’s commitment to internationally recognised human rights faces a major test in the United States. Goal 6 of the FIFA Statutes declares that FIFA is “committed to respecting all to respecting all internationally recognised human rights and promoting the protection of these rights.” The slogan “Football Unites the World,” long championed by Infantino, risks being undermined by the practical realities of Trump’s foreign policy and restrictive immigration measures. As Carlos de las Heras, Amnesty International Spain’s lead on sports and human rights, states, “… the tournament cannot be a celebration of football when thousands of fans are being denied entry.”
These concerns are magnified when one considers that the US is hosting 78 matches, making accessibility for international fans a critical issue. Policies including mass deportations and restrictive travel measures, with US Immigration and Custom’s Enforcement (‘ICE’) playing a central security role, have profound implications for international fans. On 5 May 2025, Humans Rights Watch (‘HRW’) wrote to Infantino, expressing their grave concerns about the ‘impact of current United States immigration polices’ on the 2026 World Cup. HRW argued that the policies directly contravene FIFA’s human rights responsibilities, codified in Article 3 of the FIFA Statutes. Calls are now growing for European countries to boycott the World Cup in response to Trump’s immigration crackdown. Mohamad Safa, diplomat and director of the Patriotic Vision organization, cancelled his tickets, stating that due to ICE actions, “the US has become unsafe to visit.” The innocent deaths of demonstrators and protestors by ICE officials raises further questions as to the safety of foreign fans and spectators. If ICE are treating US nationals in this way, what chance do “foreign aliens” have in the US?
Parallel to this, former FIFA chief, Sepp Blatter, has backed a proposed fan boycott of World Cup 2026 matches in the United States because of the conduct of President Donald Trump and his administration at home and abroad.
These responses underscore a central tension: FIFA’s aspirational human rights commitments are challenged by host nation policies that restrict participation, raising questions about accountability, consistency, and the practical enforceability of human rights standards in global sporting events.
These concerns are magnified when one considers that the US is hosting 78 matches, making accessibility for international fans a critical issue. Policies including mass deportations and restrictive travel measures, with US Immigration and Custom’s Enforcement (‘ICE’) playing a central security role, have profound implications for international fans. On 5 May 2025, Humans Rights Watch (‘HRW’) wrote to Infantino, expressing their grave concerns about the ‘impact of current United States immigration polices’ on the 2026 World Cup. HRW argued that the policies directly contravene FIFA’s human rights responsibilities, codified in Article 3 of the FIFA Statutes. Calls are now growing for European countries to boycott the World Cup in response to Trump’s immigration crackdown. Mohamad Safa, diplomat and director of the Patriotic Vision organization, cancelled his tickets, stating that due to ICE actions, “the US has become unsafe to visit.” The innocent deaths of demonstrators and protestors by ICE officials raises further questions as to the safety of foreign fans and spectators. If ICE are treating US nationals in this way, what chance do “foreign aliens” have in the US?
Parallel to this, former FIFA chief, Sepp Blatter, has backed a proposed fan boycott of World Cup 2026 matches in the United States because of the conduct of President Donald Trump and his administration at home and abroad.
These responses underscore a central tension: FIFA’s aspirational human rights commitments are challenged by host nation policies that restrict participation, raising questions about accountability, consistency, and the practical enforceability of human rights standards in global sporting events.
World Cup will be Trump’s ‘Sportswashing’
Minky Worden, of Human Rights Watch defines sportswashing as the “practice of using a beloved sporting event to attract fans and positive coverage that might also serve to cover up serious human rights abuses”. The term is usually used in relation to autocracies or dictatorial regimes, but Worden argues that it should be applied to the current US regime and as a result, to the World Cup. As she very eloquently stated,
“This was supposed to be the first ever World Cup with a human rights framework: key protections for workers, fans, players and communities. Instead, the US administration’s brutal immigration crackdown, discriminatory policies and threats to press freedom mean the tournament risks being defined by exclusion and fear. I think we are here to say that the problem of sportswashing is alive and well and this World Cup will be a bonanza for sportswashing.”
“This was supposed to be the first ever World Cup with a human rights framework: key protections for workers, fans, players and communities. Instead, the US administration’s brutal immigration crackdown, discriminatory policies and threats to press freedom mean the tournament risks being defined by exclusion and fear. I think we are here to say that the problem of sportswashing is alive and well and this World Cup will be a bonanza for sportswashing.”
Trump’s Visa Minefield
Holding a ticket to the FIFA World Cup 2026 does not guarantee a visa or entry into the United States, Canada, or Mexico. In particular, the United States does not operate a universal or straightforward visa system, creating a complex environment for international fans.
Visa Waiver Program (‘VWP’) Nationals
Citizens of countries participating in the US Visa Waiver Program (‘VWP’) are eligible to travel to the US for up to 90 days without obtaining a traditional visa. This includes much of Europe, Japan and Australia. While a FIFA Pass is not required for these travellers, supporters must apply for a valid Electronic System for Travel Authorization (‘ESTA’) before entering the country.
FIFA Pass
In the letter of 5 May 2025, HRW highlighted that for many countries not subject to a travel ban, prohibitively long visa wait times could make attendance extremely difficult. On 18 November 2025, the US Department of State, in conjunction with FIFA, announced the introduction of the Priority Appointment Scheduling System (‘FIFA Pass’). This program allows fans required to attend a visa interview to secure faster US visitor visa (B1/B2) appointments. While it eases access to appointments, it does not guarantee visa issuance.
Infantino praised the programme, stating that “America welcomes the world. We have always said that this will be the greatest and most inclusive FIFA World Cup in history – and the FIFA PASS service is a very concrete example of that.” Whether visas are actually issued will only become clear once statistics on applications, entry and denial are published.
Banned Countries
Trump’s travel restrictions currently affects 39 countries, with additional warnings issued to several others. Among the countries who have qualified for the 2026 World Cup, Haiti and Iran are subject to full restrictions, while Ivory Coast and Senegal face partial restrictions. This raises practical and legal questions but in particular, will affected national teams, officials, and supporters be able to participate fully in the tournament?
While exceptions exist for athletes, team officials, and their immediate entourages, these exemptions do not apply to fans or spectators. Supporters from countries banned by the US must still submit visa applications, with no guarantee of approval. The Department of State has clarified that a FIFA Pass appointment does not permit visa issuance to individuals “who are otherwise not eligible” to be issued a visa, meaning fans from these four countries are unlikely to travel to the US for the tournament.
Hosting countries of recent men’s World Cups have ensured that it has been easier for fans to obtain visas and travel: this may not be the case for this world cup. While initiatives like the FIFA Pass aim to streamline travel for some supporters, strict visa restrictions and travel bans demonstrate that a ticket alone does not guarantee entry. For fans from affected countries, participation in the 2026 World Cup remains uncertain, exposing the practical and legal challenges posed by US immigration policies and calling into question FIFA’s commitment to truly inclusive global access.
Visa Waiver Program (‘VWP’) Nationals
Citizens of countries participating in the US Visa Waiver Program (‘VWP’) are eligible to travel to the US for up to 90 days without obtaining a traditional visa. This includes much of Europe, Japan and Australia. While a FIFA Pass is not required for these travellers, supporters must apply for a valid Electronic System for Travel Authorization (‘ESTA’) before entering the country.
FIFA Pass
In the letter of 5 May 2025, HRW highlighted that for many countries not subject to a travel ban, prohibitively long visa wait times could make attendance extremely difficult. On 18 November 2025, the US Department of State, in conjunction with FIFA, announced the introduction of the Priority Appointment Scheduling System (‘FIFA Pass’). This program allows fans required to attend a visa interview to secure faster US visitor visa (B1/B2) appointments. While it eases access to appointments, it does not guarantee visa issuance.
Infantino praised the programme, stating that “America welcomes the world. We have always said that this will be the greatest and most inclusive FIFA World Cup in history – and the FIFA PASS service is a very concrete example of that.” Whether visas are actually issued will only become clear once statistics on applications, entry and denial are published.
Banned Countries
Trump’s travel restrictions currently affects 39 countries, with additional warnings issued to several others. Among the countries who have qualified for the 2026 World Cup, Haiti and Iran are subject to full restrictions, while Ivory Coast and Senegal face partial restrictions. This raises practical and legal questions but in particular, will affected national teams, officials, and supporters be able to participate fully in the tournament?
While exceptions exist for athletes, team officials, and their immediate entourages, these exemptions do not apply to fans or spectators. Supporters from countries banned by the US must still submit visa applications, with no guarantee of approval. The Department of State has clarified that a FIFA Pass appointment does not permit visa issuance to individuals “who are otherwise not eligible” to be issued a visa, meaning fans from these four countries are unlikely to travel to the US for the tournament.
Hosting countries of recent men’s World Cups have ensured that it has been easier for fans to obtain visas and travel: this may not be the case for this world cup. While initiatives like the FIFA Pass aim to streamline travel for some supporters, strict visa restrictions and travel bans demonstrate that a ticket alone does not guarantee entry. For fans from affected countries, participation in the 2026 World Cup remains uncertain, exposing the practical and legal challenges posed by US immigration policies and calling into question FIFA’s commitment to truly inclusive global access.
International Relations
Mexico
Due to ongoing tensions with Trump, concerns have been raised regarding Mexico, one of the co-hosts of the World Cup. Since Trump’s first inauguration in 2016, Mexico has been a frequent target of his rhetoric and policies. During his 2015 presidential campaign, he infamously characterised Mexicans as “killers and rapists,” and his subsequent foreign policy has focused heavily on combating drug cartels along the US-Mexico border.
On 22 February 2026, El Mencho, the leader of the Jalisco New Generation Charter and top cartel boss, was killed in a Mexican military operation which was aided by US intelligence. El Mencho’s death triggered a wave of retaliatory violence. Claudia Sheinbaum, Mexico’s president, has reassured the public that visitors for the World Cup will be kept safe.
However, Trump’s aggressive stance in pressuring Mexico to control drug cartels means there are no guarantees to American forces taking further action in Mexico. This could lead to a breakdown in diplomatic relations, potentially compromising the safety and operation of World Cup venues in Mexico. FIFA’s proclaimed neutrality could also be severely tested if it is forced to navigate or mediate between two politically hostile governments who are jointly hosting the tournament.
Iran
The geopolitical landscape surrounding the 2026 FIFA World Cup has become increasingly unstable. On 28 February 2026, the US and Israel launched military strikes in Iran, resulting in the death of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. While Khamenei’s passing marked the end of decades of authoritarian rule and economic mismanagement, it has also created profound uncertainty over political succession, further destabilising the region.
Questions have been raised in relation to the legality of the actions of the US and Israel and allegations of war crimes and unlawful deaths have been raised by many countries around the world as schools and hospitals have been bombed, bridges and civilian infrastructure destroyed and innocent lives lost including many young children and women. NATO countries have refused to become involved as they do not see the actions of the US or Israel as that of defending their countries, but in many cases, have accused them of being the aggressors. As of 27 April 2026, the war is expanding across the region with no end in sight.
In this context, the president of Iran’s football federation has expressed uncertainty over whether the national team will be able to participate in World Cup matches in the US. The escalating conflict has raised the possibility of a boycott, putting Iran’s participation in the tournament in serious doubt.
And they are right to be worried. On the 12 March, Trump said “The Iran national soccer team is welcome to the World Cup, but I really don’t believe it is appropriate that they be there, for their own life and safety.” This was two days after Infantino said he had received assurances from Trump that Iran would be welcome at the tournament. On what basis could the Iran football federation reassure the players and supporting staff that they would be safe?
Just as importantly, what protections will any Iranian civilians be granted in the US when the host country is at war with Iran and with the President of the US threatening to “send Iran back to the stone ages” with a barrage of attacks on civilian targets, (despite it probably being a war crime). More still, how can any Iranian citizen feel safe in the United States when the US President on the 6 April said that “… the entire country can be taken out in one night”.
Due to ongoing tensions with Trump, concerns have been raised regarding Mexico, one of the co-hosts of the World Cup. Since Trump’s first inauguration in 2016, Mexico has been a frequent target of his rhetoric and policies. During his 2015 presidential campaign, he infamously characterised Mexicans as “killers and rapists,” and his subsequent foreign policy has focused heavily on combating drug cartels along the US-Mexico border.
On 22 February 2026, El Mencho, the leader of the Jalisco New Generation Charter and top cartel boss, was killed in a Mexican military operation which was aided by US intelligence. El Mencho’s death triggered a wave of retaliatory violence. Claudia Sheinbaum, Mexico’s president, has reassured the public that visitors for the World Cup will be kept safe.
However, Trump’s aggressive stance in pressuring Mexico to control drug cartels means there are no guarantees to American forces taking further action in Mexico. This could lead to a breakdown in diplomatic relations, potentially compromising the safety and operation of World Cup venues in Mexico. FIFA’s proclaimed neutrality could also be severely tested if it is forced to navigate or mediate between two politically hostile governments who are jointly hosting the tournament.
Iran
The geopolitical landscape surrounding the 2026 FIFA World Cup has become increasingly unstable. On 28 February 2026, the US and Israel launched military strikes in Iran, resulting in the death of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. While Khamenei’s passing marked the end of decades of authoritarian rule and economic mismanagement, it has also created profound uncertainty over political succession, further destabilising the region.
Questions have been raised in relation to the legality of the actions of the US and Israel and allegations of war crimes and unlawful deaths have been raised by many countries around the world as schools and hospitals have been bombed, bridges and civilian infrastructure destroyed and innocent lives lost including many young children and women. NATO countries have refused to become involved as they do not see the actions of the US or Israel as that of defending their countries, but in many cases, have accused them of being the aggressors. As of 27 April 2026, the war is expanding across the region with no end in sight.
In this context, the president of Iran’s football federation has expressed uncertainty over whether the national team will be able to participate in World Cup matches in the US. The escalating conflict has raised the possibility of a boycott, putting Iran’s participation in the tournament in serious doubt.
And they are right to be worried. On the 12 March, Trump said “The Iran national soccer team is welcome to the World Cup, but I really don’t believe it is appropriate that they be there, for their own life and safety.” This was two days after Infantino said he had received assurances from Trump that Iran would be welcome at the tournament. On what basis could the Iran football federation reassure the players and supporting staff that they would be safe?
Just as importantly, what protections will any Iranian civilians be granted in the US when the host country is at war with Iran and with the President of the US threatening to “send Iran back to the stone ages” with a barrage of attacks on civilian targets, (despite it probably being a war crime). More still, how can any Iranian citizen feel safe in the United States when the US President on the 6 April said that “… the entire country can be taken out in one night”.
Conclusion
If neutrality is already compromised at an institutional level, the more pressing question becomes whether states will respond in kind – through protest, withdrawal, or boycott. In the next article of this two-part series, the SLAM Global team will explore how geopolitical tensions, including the situation in Iran, could shape the future of the 2026 FIFA World Cup and what this means for the tournament’s promise of global inclusivity.