The FIFA World Cup has always been more than football. For one month every four years, it becomes a celebration of national pride, cultural exchange and sporting excellence. It is one of the few events capable of bringing together people from almost every corner of the globe under a shared banner.
Yet, as the 2026 FIFA World Cup prepares to kick off across the United States, Canada and Mexico, the tournament finds itself engulfed in controversies that have little to do with football.
Referees have been deported. Players have been detained at airports. Fans have been denied entry despite securing tickets. Governments are trading accusations. Consumer groups are challenging FIFA’s ticketing policies. Environmental activists are warning about the event’s carbon footprint. And, on top of that, one of the three host nations is at war with one of the 48 participating countries.
Taken individually, none of these issues may be large enough to derail a tournament expected to attract billions of viewers worldwide. Together, however, they raise uncomfortable questions about whether football’s biggest spectacle can remain insulated from the political, economic and social tensions surrounding it.
This is not the first time a host nation has found itself at the centre of controversy. But unlike past World Cups, where criticism centred on a single issue — human rights in Qatar, corruption allegations in South Africa or Brazil, or labour concerns in Russia — the 2026 edition is facing multiple challenges simultaneously involving governments, FIFA, fans, players, referees and environmental groups.
The expanded 104-match World Cup begins on Thursday in Mexico and concludes on July 19 with the final in New Jersey. Of the total matches, 78 will be staged in the United States, including every fixture from the Round of 16 onwards.
And with the competition set to run for more than a month across three countries and 16 host cities, there is growing concern that many of these disputes could spill over into the tournament itself.
A World Cup host at war with a participant
For the first time in World Cup history, a host nation is involved in a military conflict with one of the participating countries. The United States’ confrontation with Iran has cast a long shadow over preparations.
Months before the tournament, US President Donald Trump publicly questioned whether Iran should even participate.
“The Iran National Soccer Team is welcome to The World Cup, but I don’t really believe it is appropriate that they be here, for their own life and safety. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”
Although Iran ultimately qualified and received assurances from FIFA, visa issues continued to plague the delegation. Iranian officials said visas were granted to players only days before their departure for the World Cup, while several administrative and managerial staff members were reportedly denied entry altogether.
The dispute has triggered accusations that the United States failed to fulfil the obligations expected of a World Cup host.
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani criticised restrictions affecting World Cup participants and media personnel, arguing that such measures run counter to the spirit of the tournament.
“The denial of visas for journalists from certain countries, or the rejection of a visa for a coach of a team, as well as single-day visas for specific foreign national teams, this is anathema to what this tournament is supposed to be about,” Mamdani said on Monday.
Responding to concerns over visa-related issues, a US State Department spokesperson said Washington was coordinating with multiple agencies and FIFA to facilitate travel for participating teams.
“The Department of State is working closely with the White House, the Department of Homeland Security, and FIFA to support qualifying national teams’ travel to participate in World Cup events through our visa process,” the spokesperson said in a statement issued on Monday.
The spokesperson added that national security considerations would remain paramount during the visa review process.
“At the same time, the Administration will not waver in upholding US law and the highest standards of national security and public safety in the conduct of our visa process. We adjudicate each visa application on a case-by-case basis after rigorous review and thorough vetting to determine whether the individual is eligible under US law.”
When geopolitics enters the dressing room
The most alarming controversies have centred on immigration and border controls.
The latest flashpoint involved Somali referee Omar Abdulkadir Artan, regarded as one of Africa’s leading match officials. Artan was reportedly denied entry at Miami International Airport and placed on a return flight despite travelling with valid documentation and diplomatic credentials.
The episode sparked outrage across African football circles and prompted a public intervention from Somali Prime Minister Hassan Ali Khaire.
“I am deeply disappointed by the news that Omar Artan, Africa’s finest referee and one of the best in the world, may be unable to officiate at the FIFA World Cup due to visa-related circumstances,” said Hassan Ali Khaire.
“Omar has earned his place through talent, hard work, professionalism, and integrity. Having officiated at the highest levels of African and international football, his credentials speak for themselves. He represents not only Somalia, but also the aspirations of millions of young Africans who believe excellence should be recognised on the world stage,” he added.
Meanwhile, Somalia is not the only country affected by US policies.
Iraq vice-captain Aymen Hussein, whose goal secured his country’s place at the World Cup, was reportedly detained and questioned for seven hours upon arrival in the United States. Another player and a team photographer were also held for questioning, while the photographer was ultimately denied entry.
Such episodes have intensified scrutiny of US immigration procedures ahead of the tournament.
The beautiful game meets ugly economics
If politics has become one source of controversy, money has become another.
World Cup tickets have never been cheap, but many supporters argue that FIFA has pushed pricing into unprecedented territory.
Consumer groups in Europe filed formal complaints alleging that FIFA abused its dominant market position by imposing excessive prices and opaque sales practices.
The numbers explain the outrage.
Ticket category |
Reported price |
Cheapest group-stage tickets |
Around $140 |
Final tickets (standard categories) |
Up to $8,680 |
Premium final packages |
Around $11,000 |
Last remaining final seat reported on sale |
$690,000 |
The biggest source of anger has been FIFA’s use of dynamic pricing, a model more commonly associated with airlines and concert promoters.
Under the system, prices rise as demand increases, meaning supporters purchasing identical seats may pay vastly different amounts.
For many fans, that feels fundamentally at odds with football’s tradition of accessibility.
Fans paying more — and seeing less
Supporters have also complained about long online queues, technical glitches and unclear seat allocations.
Some fans who purchased premium viewing locations later alleged that temporary structures and additional seating arrangements would partially obstruct their view of the pitch.
Others accused FIFA of encouraging speculation through its official resale platform.
Critics note that the governing body takes a commission on resold tickets while imposing few restrictions on resale values, creating incentives for ticket flipping rather than discouraging it.
The result is a growing perception among supporters that football’s biggest event has become increasingly inaccessible to ordinary fans.
The supporters left behind
Ticket prices are only part of the problem.
Even fans willing to spend thousands of dollars face uncertainty over whether they can enter the country.
Supporters from several nations have encountered visa complications or travel restrictions. Reports suggest that fans from countries including Iran, Haiti, Senegal and Ivory Coast face significant barriers to attending matches.
Scottish supporters have also reported cases in which travel authorisations appeared to have been approved before later being rejected, leaving many facing substantial financial losses on flights and accommodation.
For an event that markets itself as the world’s most inclusive sporting festival, the image of ticket-holding supporters stranded outside host nations presents a serious reputational challenge.
The climate bill arrives
Then there is the environmental debate.
The 2026 edition is the largest World Cup in history.
The tournament has expanded from 32 teams to 48, increasing the number of matches from 64 to 104.
That expansion has come with significant environmental costs.
Researchers estimate that the competition could generate more than nine million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions, largely due to extensive air travel between host cities spread across North America.
Environmental groups have described the event as potentially the most climate-damaging World Cup ever staged.
Even local transport plans have attracted criticism.
Fans have complained about expensive train fares, costly shuttle services and parking charges that, at some venues, run into hundreds of dollars per vehicle.
The contrast between FIFA’s sustainability messaging and the tournament’s projected environmental footprint has become another point of contention.
FIFA’s neutrality under scrutiny
The governing body has also faced criticism over its relationship with the Trump administration.
FIFA President Gianni Infantino’s increasingly close public association with Trump has prompted questions about whether the organisation is maintaining its traditional stance of political neutrality.
Critics point to appearances alongside the US president and symbolic gestures, including the presentation of a FIFA Peace Prize, as evidence that football’s governing body risks becoming entangled in geopolitical narratives.
The challenge for FIFA is obvious.
Every future visa dispute, airport detention or diplomatic disagreement involving participating nations now risks becoming a World Cup story.
And with teams, officials and supporters continuing to arrive throughout the tournament, further incidents cannot be ruled out.
Historically, World Cups have often managed to leave pre-tournament disputes behind once the football begins. The 2026 edition may not enjoy that luxury.
Many of the issues dominating headlines today are not one-off controversies tied to construction delays or organisational mistakes. They are ongoing disputes rooted in immigration policy, international politics, consumer rights and environmental concerns.
A visa denied during the group stage. A supporter detained near a stadium. A diplomatic dispute involving a participating nation. Another ticketing controversy. Any of these could quickly overshadow events on the pitch.
The football itself is likely to be spectacular. The expanded format promises more matches, more nations and more stories than ever before. Stadiums are expected to be full. Television audiences will reach into the billions.
But as the countdown to kick-off nears its end, the tournament arrives carrying more baggage than perhaps any World Cup in modern history.
The question now is whether the football can become the story again.
Or whether the controversies that have defined the road to the World Cup will continue to follow the tournament long after the opening whistle.
Let us not forget that in his stints with Mississippi State and Florida, he compiled a 103-61 mark while leading the teams to 11 bowl games in 13 seasons.
Year One saw the Lobos finish with nine wins and a 6-2 mark in league play, good enough for a four-way tie for the regular season crown. And UNM played a postseason game for the first time since the 2016 season.
Chang has turned things around in his four seasons, culminating with a nine-win season a year ago, capped off by a bowl win over California, the school’s first bowl game and bowl win since the 2025 season.
The last two seasons were a bit forgettable in Colorado Springs as the Falcons struggled in a pair of losing campaigns, something Calhoun has not experienced very often in his career.
With an offensive background, it is no shock that NDSU has had a ton of success on that side of the ball during his tenure.
Following a successful debut season, expectations were certainly not met in the second season with the Spartans. SJSU struggled in 2025 and ended up dropping six of its last seven.
While modest, it was an improvement, and the Pack were much more competitive a season ago.
Sawvel has a defensive background, and the Cowboys have been solid on that side of the ball, but the offense has not produced nearly enough for UW to find success.
His time in West Texas has brought far less success. The Miners have limped to just five wins in the last two seasons and struggled to a 1-7 mark in Conference USA in 2025.
Following the departure of Thomas Hammock to the Seahawks last February, Harley was named the interim head coach for the Huskies.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login