Football fans around the world are eagerly awaiting the start of the FIFA World Cup, which will be jointly hosted by Canada, Mexico, and the United States from 11 June to 19 July.

This edition of the tournament carries particular significance. The reason lies not in the game itself or the competition between teams, but rather in its host location, specifically the United States.

The World Cup, which is supposed to be the most inclusive and globally celebrated of sporting events, is taking place under a heavy political shadow. The reason is that the United States, which is hosting a substantial part of the tournament, is governed by Donald Trump, whose administration is marked by unpredictable decision-making, a hardline approach to immigration, and a constant readiness to turn borders into instruments of political, security, and cultural exclusion.

As a result, the question is no longer simply who will win and who will lose. It is also: who will be allowed to reach the stadium in the first place?

Amid the ongoing confrontation between the United States and Iran, political tensions have spilled into the world of football. The Iranian Football Federation has accused the United States of engaging in “retaliatory conduct” after visas were denied to 14 members of the national team’s administrative staff. 

Even more striking is that, at the last minute, the Iranian Football Federation was forced to relocate the national team’s training camp from Arizona to Mexico due to uncertainty over visa approvals. As a result, players will be required to make repeated cross-border journeys, involving lengthy flights, entering US territory only on match days and leaving the same day again.

In response, a US official made a particularly revealing statement: “We will not allow the Iranian team to exploit this system to smuggle terrorists into the United States under false pretences.”

The remark injected the language of geopolitics directly into the heart of a sporting event awaited by millions around the world.

The International Sports Press Association revealed that African and Iranian journalists, despite receiving official FIFA accreditation, were granted only single-entry visas. This means that if they leave US territory to cover matches in Canada or Mexico, they will be unable to re-enter the United States.

The issue, therefore, appears to be more than a mere administrative or technical matter. Rather, it reflects a broader political climate in which the Trump administration treats migrants and foreign arrivals as potential threats before seeing them as visitors, supporters, journalists, or members of sporting delegations.

The World Cup, an event that is supposed to open borders to the world, thus finds itself constrained by the same logic of suspicion that has come to define Trump’s immigration policies.

Logistical Chaos…

South Africa’s national team was also forced to postpone its travel plans because of visa complications. The country’s sports minister described the situation as “embarrassing and grossly unfair to the players and technical staff.” Iraq’s national team faced a similar disruption, as a number of its professional players, along with members of its medical and technical staff, were unable to obtain visas to enter Mexico.

The controversy surrounding entry visas to the three World Cup host countries shows no sign of fading. Many football fans have encountered significant difficulties in securing visas, while others have been denied entry altogether. The US State Department has announced a freeze on visa applications from 75 countries, particularly affecting Arab and African nations, including Morocco, Algeria, Ghana, Senegal, Egypt, Tunisia, Côte d’Ivoire, and Jordan.

Notably, all of these countries have national teams participating in the tournament’s twenty-third edition.

Why, then, did Mexico, the United States, and Canada agree to host the World Cup if obtaining entry visas to their territories would be subject to such obstacles?

Unfortunately, even football has not escaped political considerations. The sport has increasingly become entangled in the dynamics of political influence, discrimination, and war, transforming what was meant to be a global game into one shaped by forces far beyond the pitch.

FIFA and the Principle of Equality

Does a host country have the right to discriminate between teams on the basis of their passports, the nationality of players and technical staff, or political considerations? This question is particularly pressing given that football is the world’s most popular sport, embodying passion, life, and the competitive spirit that unfolds on the pitch. The game has long transcended its status as a sport, becoming a symbol of unity, joy, entertainment, and fair competition.

At the 2026 World Cup, however, the situation appears markedly different. Politics has entered the arena, disrupting a game that has captivated the minds and hearts of millions around the world.

In this context, the most important question is: where is FIFA’s role in safeguarding the principle of equality among participating teams?

FIFA, which has long championed the slogan “the game for all,” now finds itself in a fragile position, unable, or perhaps unwilling, to confront the host countries of the 2026 World Cup. Although the Iranian Football Federation formally informed FIFA of what it described as “political interference in sport in its most blatant form,” the governing body limited itself to muted statements stressing that it is “not a party to immigration decisions.”

Likewise, FIFA’s silence in the face of the exclusion of accredited journalists and sports officials on vague grounds undermines the credibility of an institution that claims football stadiums are neutral spaces that rise above politics.

More troubling still is the precedent this World Cup may establish, one potentially more consequential than any result on the pitch. It suggests that a passport now determines who has the right to celebrate football and who is condemned to watch it from afar.

In the end, the only losses at this World Cup may not be those recorded on the scoreboard. There is a deeper and more bitter loss, reflected in every rejected passport, every empty seat, and every supporter forced to follow the tournament through a screen rather than from the stands where they rightfully wished to be.

Football has long been celebrated as a game that transcends borders. Today, however, it finds itself subject to a bureaucratic stamp that decides who belongs to this world and who does not. And when a visa becomes an instrument of exclusion, the game is no longer for everyone. It becomes, quite simply, a privilege reserved for the fortunate few.