When football meets geopolitics: The challenges facing World Cup 2026

When the expanded 48-team FIFA World Cup kicks off in North America on June 11, 2026, it will be the largest sporting event ever staged. Matches will take place across the United States, Canada, and Mexico, involving millions of spectators and a global television audience expected to exceed five billion. The tournament is now unfolding against a geopolitical backdrop that few planners anticipated: a major war in the Middle East involving the United States and Israel against Iran, Iranian retaliation across the region, and an increasingly assertive foreign policy under the current US administration. Many policymakers and football officials quietly hope that the conflict will de-escalate or conclude well before the tournament begins, as a prolonged war would risk casting a shadow over the world’s largest sporting event.

For organisers and host governments, the question is no longer simply whether the tournament will succeed, but how global politics and security tensions may reshape the environment in which it takes place.

Sport has long been entangled with international politics, and the World Cup is no exception. With Washington deeply engaged in a war in the Middle East, calls for symbolic boycotts have begun circulating among political figures and football federations in parts of the Global South and Middle East.

Such conversations remain largely speculative, but they illustrate the reality that global football cannot fully isolate itself from international conflict. Within Asian football governance circles, there has even been quiet discussion about contingency replacements should a qualified team withdraw. Names such as Iraq or even the United Arab Emirates have occasionally surfaced, though the logistical and regulatory hurdles for such substitutions would be considerable.

Such calls are hardly unprecedented. The Olympic Games and past World Cups have often served as platforms for political messaging, from Cold War boycotts to diplomatic protests over human rights issues. In most cases, however, these gestures have remained limited.

The 2026 tournament is widely viewed within the football world as “too big to fail.” With 48 teams participating and a multi-country hosting arrangement, the financial and political stakes are enormous. FIFA expects the tournament to generate roughly $12 billion in revenue, an unprecedented figure in global sport. For national associations, qualification brings major financial rewards, sponsorship opportunities, and prestige. Walking away from the tournament would therefore represent not only a political statement but also a significant economic sacrifice.

In practice, this economic reality acts as a stabiliser. Even federations critical of US foreign policy are unlikely to deny their players and fans the opportunity to participate in the world’s most watched sporting event. Boycott rhetoric may therefore remain more symbolic than operational.

Where geopolitics may have a more tangible impact is security planning.

Mega-events like the World Cup already involve extensive security preparations, including intelligence coordination, counterterrorism policing, cyber monitoring, and surveillance technologies. For the 2026 tournament, these measures are likely to be intensified given the broader international security environment.

The United States is expected to treat the tournament as a national security event of the highest order, comparable to a presidential inauguration or the Super Bowl but on a vastly larger scale. Coordination between federal agencies, local law enforcement, and international partners will be essential.

Cybersecurity will also be a critical dimension. With digital infrastructure underpinning ticketing, broadcasting, and stadium operations, major sporting events increasingly face the risk of cyberattacks designed to generate global attention.

The broader security climate may also shape how fans and national contingents are treated upon entry to the United States. Washington’s increasingly securitised rhetoric toward transnational threats, including Mexican drug cartels and organised crime networks, has influenced how authorities frame border security and migration. In a World Cup context, this could translate into stricter visa vetting and expanded screening for visitors from certain regions, particularly parts of the Middle East and Latin America.

At the same time, the war in the Middle East has heightened concerns about politically motivated demonstrations or symbolic protest activity during the tournament.

The political context within North America adds another layer of complexity.

Relations between Washington, Ottawa, and Mexico City have periodically been strained by trade disputes, immigration debates, and US rhetoric regarding Mexican cartels and border security. In recent years, the US administration has increasingly framed cartel activity as a national security issue, even raising the possibility of more aggressive counter-cartel operations.

Nevertheless, the World Cup also offers an opportunity for diplomatic cooperation. Mega-events often serve as platforms for host countries to demonstrate unity and organizational competence. For the United States, Canada, and Mexico, the tournament provides a chance to showcase North American collaboration on a global stage.

At the centre of this complex landscape is Gianni Infantino, whose tenure as president of FIFA has been marked by political pragmatism.

Infantino has cultivated relationships with world leaders, including Donald Trump, who has repeatedly praised the upcoming tournament as an opportunity to highlight American leadership in global sport.

The relationship between Infantino and Trump has been unusually close by the standards of international sporting diplomacy. Infantino has made several visits to Washington and emphasised cooperation with the US administration in preparing for the tournament. During the World Cup draw in late 2025, he even presented Trump with a symbolic “FIFA Peace Prize,” a gesture that drew criticism in parts of Europe and raised questions about FIFA’s commitment to neutrality.

For Infantino, the logic behind this approach is largely pragmatic. By cultivating a close relationship with the US president, FIFA hopes to ensure that visa policies, security arrangements, and political tensions do not disrupt the tournament.

That strategy, however, faces growing pressure as the Middle East conflict intensifies. Critics argue that FIFA risks appearing aligned with US policy if it ignores boycott calls or discourages political expression by players and fans.

Despite the tensions surrounding it, the World Cup remains one of the world’s most powerful instruments of soft power. Host nations use the event to shape global perceptions, attract investment, and demonstrate cultural openness.

For the United States, hosting the tournament amid global turbulence offers both risks and opportunities. A successful World Cup could reinforce America’s image as a secure and capable organiser of major international events. Conversely, political controversies or security incidents could overshadow the sporting spectacle.

With months remaining before kickoff, the 2026 World Cup will likely continue to intersect with shifting geopolitical dynamics, from conflicts in the Middle East to evolving political relations within North America.

In the end, the tournament will likely proceed much as planned, but the political environment surrounding it may be far more charged than FIFA originally anticipated. For fans around the world, football will remain the central attraction. For policymakers and security planners, however, the tournament will also serve as a test of how global mega-events can be managed in an increasingly fragmented international order.

Dr Kristian Alexander is a Senior Fellow and Lead Researcher at the Rabdan Security and Defense Institute (RSDI), Abu Dhabi, UAE.