For the first time in the tournament's history, a record 48 national teams participated, and this number may increase to 64 teams at the next World Cup, according to statements by Swiss FIFA President Gianni Infantino.
Even before the most recent tournament began, and throughout its duration, debates have taken place regarding several issues connected to the World Cup that were not necessarily related to football or even to sports in the traditional sense. Among the most prominent topics of controversy, some of which remain subjects of discussion, were political issues and matters relating to various aspects of the economy, such as financing, marketing, advertising, maximizing financial gains, commercial returns, and broader economic benefits. This article focuses specifically on the political issues that were raised.
Although some commentators argued that the latest World Cup exposed the falsehood of the often-repeated claim that sports and politics can be separated, the truth is that this realization is far from new. Throughout history, sports in general, including football, have frequently been influenced by political considerations or used to serve political objectives. Likewise, sports and football have often been employed in the service of political goals, ideological agendas, and the promotion of particular models of thought, whether in ancient, medieval, modern, or contemporary history.
Some of the most prominent examples from the 20th century was the exploitation by the Italian Fascist leader Benito Mussolini of Italy's hosting of the 1934 FIFA World Cup, followed by the German Nazi leader Adolf Hitler's exploitation of Germany's hosting of the 1936 Olympic Games. In both cases, these events were used to promote Fascist and Nazi ideologies and the political, economic, social, and cultural models they represented, clear examples of politics and ideology exploiting sports in general, and football in particular.
During the Cold War between the Western Capitalist bloc led by the United States of America and the Eastern Communist bloc led by the former Soviet Union, from the end of World War II until the collapse and disintegration of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc in the early 1990s, each side was keen to demonstrate superiority in sports over the other. Athletic success was presented not merely as the result of the success of sports’ strategies and policies, but as evidence of the superiority of each side's broader ideological and political system and model. This rivalry was particularly evident in the fierce competition for gold medals at successive Olympic Games across all sports. At times the communist countries prevailed, while at other times the capitalist countries did better.
In the FIFA World Cup, however, football's relatively late and hesitant development in the United States of America meant that competition for the title was largely confined to European countries from both the Western and Eastern blocs, with significant and influential challenges from certain developing countries, particularly those in Latin America. Although some Eastern European nations achieved notable successes in several World Cup tournamenst, the championship itself was generally shared between Western European and Latin American countries.
There is little doubt, however, that the World Cup which concluded only a few days ago was perhaps unprecedented in both the number and depth of political issues associated with it, or raised during its course, from before the opening match until its final moments.
Before the tournament even began, numerous political issues emerged, accompanied by a wide range of viewpoints representing the perspectives of the parties directly or indirectly concerned. These opinions were expressed both in traditional media and across widely used social media platforms.
The first group of issues involved what a couple of African national teams and one African referee experienced during the tournament. These included what was described as excessively thorough inspections of members of the Senegalese national team upon their arrival in the United States of America from Senegal, delays in issuing U.S. visas to several members of the Democratic Republic of the Congo's national team, and the refusal to grant a visa to a renowned and highly respected Somali referee nominated by FIFA to take part in some official tournament matches, despite him being one of Africa's leading referees.
Critics of these actions argued, either explicitly or implicitly, that they reflected some sort of “skin colour”-motivated discrimination against those subjected to the measures. Defenders of the U.S. administration’s actions, however, maintained that the procedures were justified on security grounds and formed part of the enhanced security framework, including counterterrorism measures, adopted by U.S. authorities following the September 11, 2001 attacks. They argued that these measures were intended to protect everyone involved in the World Cup, including players, referees, officials, whether Americans or visitors from around the world.
The second group of politically significant measures were related to restrictions imposed on the Iranian national team. These included prohibiting the team from staying overnight on U.S. territory and limiting the number of delegation members permitted to enter the country, measures that particularly affected the team's administrative and medical staff. These actions drew strong criticism from the Iranian side, directed not only at the United States of America as the host country, but also at FIFA and its leadership.
Although there was no direct official response from the U.S. side, some observers justified these measures on legal grounds, citing the ongoing hostility and military confrontations between the United States and Iran. Some members of the Iranian national team also accused referees of showing bias against their team during the preliminary round and deliberately ensuring its elimination to prevent it from advancing to the knockout rounds.
A third category of issues involved allegations of politically motivated favouritism. One example, which remained a topic of discussion until the final match, was the claim that FIFA's leadership, possibly in collusion with other parties, had planned for a particular team to win the tournament, namely Argentina. However, Argentina's defeat in the final match cast serious doubt on the credibility of these claims.
The final, but perhaps one of the most noticed cases described as an example of politicization involved the U.S. President's request that the FIFA President overturn a red card issued to a U.S. national team striker, which would otherwise have prevented him from playing in the following match against Belgium. The world was surprised when the FIFA President referred the request to FIFA's relevant committee, which quickly approved it in a decision without precedent. Nevertheless, the striker's participation did not prevent the United States national team from losing the match and being eliminated from the FIFA 2026 World Cup, ending its participation in the tournament on its own territories soil in front of its own fans.
Thus, while the latest World Cup tournament might have witnessed particularly visible examples of the intersection of politics and sports, or rather the intervention of politics in sports, some of which observers have described as blatant, the reality is that the relationship between politics and sports, and more specifically political intervention in sports, including football, is neither new nor exceptional. It is a longstanding and continuing phenomenon whose forms, scale, and intensity may change over time, but which has existed since the origins of organized sports and football itself. There is little reason to expect it to disappear in either the near or distant future.
Short link: