What the Trump travel ban means for the 2026 World Cup and 2028 Olympic Games
GENEVA (AP) — U.S. President Donald Trump often says the 2026 World Cup and 2028 Los Angeles Olympics are among the events he is most excited about in his second term.
Yet there is significant uncertainty regarding visa policies for foreign visitors planning trips to the U.S. for the two biggest events in sports.
Trump's latest travel ban on citizens from 12 countries added new questions about the impact on the World Cup and the Summer Olympics, which depend on hosts opening their doors to the world.
Here's a look at the potential effects of the travel ban on those events.
What is the travel ban policy?
When Sunday ticks over to Monday, citizens of 12 countries should be banned from entering the U.S.
They are Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen.
Tighter restrictions will apply to visitors from seven more: Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela.
Trump said some countries had 'deficient' screening and vetting processes or have historically refused to take back their own citizens.
How does it affect the World Cup and Olympics?
Iran, a soccer power in Asia, is the only targeted country to qualify so far for the World Cup being co-hosted by the U.S., Canada and Mexico in one year's time.
Cuba, Haiti and Sudan are in contention. Sierra Leone might stay involved through multiple playoff games. Burundi, Equatorial Guinea and Libya have very outside shots.
But all should be able to send teams to the World Cup if they qualify because the new policy makes exceptions for 'any athlete or member of an athletic team, including coaches, persons performing a necessary support role, and immediate relatives, traveling for the World Cup, Olympics, or other major sporting event as determined by the secretary of state.'
About 200 countries could send athletes to the Summer Games, including those targeted by the latest travel restrictions. The exceptions should apply to them as well if the ban is still in place in its current form.
What about fans?
The travel ban doesn't mention any exceptions for fans from the targeted countries wishing to travel to the U.S. for the World Cup or Olympics.
Even before the travel ban, fans of the Iran soccer team living in that country already had issues about getting a visa for a World Cup visit.
Still, national team supporters often profile differently to fans of club teams who go abroad for games in international competitions like the UEFA Champions League.
For many countries, fans traveling to the World Cup — an expensive travel plan with hiked flight and hotel prices — are often from the diaspora, wealthier, and could have different passport options.
A World Cup visitor is broadly higher-spending and lower-risk for host nation security planning.
Visitors to an Olympics are often even higher-end clients, though tourism for a Summer Games is significantly less than at a World Cup, with fewer still from most of the 19 countries now targeted.
How is the U.S. working with FIFA, Olympic officials?
FIFA President Gianni Infantino has publicly built close ties since 2018 to Trump — too close according to some. He has cited the need to ensure FIFA's smooth operations at a tournament that will earn a big majority of the soccer body's expected $13 billion revenue from 2023-26.
Infantino sat next to Trump at the White House task force meeting on May 6 which prominently included Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem. FIFA's top delegate on the task force is Infantino ally Carlos Cordeiro, a former Goldman Sachs partner whose two-year run as U.S. Soccer Federation president ended in controversy in 2020.
Any visa and security issues FIFA faces — including at the 32-team Club World Cup that kicks off next week in Miami — can help LA Olympics organizers finesse their plans.
'I don't anticipate any, any problems from any countries to come and participate,' LA Games chairman Casey Wasserman told International Olympic Committee officials in March.
He revealed then, at an IOC meeting in Greece, two discreet meetings with Trump and noted the State Department has a 'fully staffed desk' to help prepare for short-notice visa processing in the summer of 2028 — albeit with a focus on teams rather than fans.
'Irrespective of politics today,' Wasserman said in March, 'America will be open and accepting to all 209 countries for the Olympics.'
FIFA and the IOC didn't immediately respond to requests for comment about the new Trump travel ban.
What have other host nations done?
The 2018 World Cup host Russia let fans enter the country with a game ticket doubling as their visa. So did Qatar four years later.
Both governments, however, also performed background checks on all visitors coming to the month-long soccer tournaments.
Governments have refused entry to unwelcome visitors. For the 2012 London Olympics, Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko — who is still its authoritarian leader today — was denied a visa despite also leading its national Olympic body. The IOC also suspended him from the Tokyo Olympics held in 2021.
___
AP soccer: https://apnews.com/hub/soccer and AP Olympics at https://apnews.com/hub/2024-paris-olympic-games
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wall Street Journal
37 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Landmark House v. NCAA Settlement Approved by Judge, Allowing Colleges to Pay Athletes
A federal judge in California finally approved a $2.6 billion settlement for college athletes that upends a century-old tenet of college sports—the notion that schools cannot pay the athletes that play for them. U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken on Friday ushered in a new era—a professional era—for college sports by signing off on a plan for the NCAA and the five most prominent sports conferences to settle a class-action lawsuit with current and former college players. The deal will give backpay to some, as well as creating a system in which each Division I school will be able to distribute roughly $20 million a year to their athletes. Schools are poised to begin implementing the new model this fall. The decision has been months in the making, drawn out in its final weeks by the judge's insistence that the NCAA find a way to stop current athletes from losing their roster spots. The settlement would 'enable NCAA schools to share their athletic revenues with Division I college student-athletes for the first time in the history of the NCAA,' Wilken wrote in her 76-page opinion. She added that it was 'expected to open the door for Division I student- athletes to receive, in the aggregate, approximately $1.6 billion dollars in new compensation and benefits per year, with that amount increasing over the next ten years.' Each school that elects to share revenue with athletes will start by distributing more than $20 million in the coming academic year. That amount will reach about $32.9 million per school by 2034-35, the end of the injunctive-relief settlement, Wilken wrote. The settlement brings the biggest changes yet to college sports, which until recently had banned athletes from earning much more than a scholarship, room and board. It comes on the heels of years of upheaval that have included loosened restrictions on off-the-field compensation for players, liberalized transfer rules and blockbuster television deals for schools and the chaotic conference realignment that followed. Yet during all of that time, many college sports leaders had still resisted paying athletes directly from the billions of dollars in revenue they helped generate. Now, that restraint is off. Schools have been readying for months for the settlement effects to land on their athletic departments, most immediately by transforming how they recruit and manage rosters in football and basketball. 'People have been doing a lot of work on a contingent basis to try to create the infrastructure that's envisioned by the settlement,' NCAA President Charlie Baker said ahead of the final approval. 'It'll definitely be rocky and kind of messy coming out of the gate, because big things are that way.' Private equity has already been circling college sports, pledging to inject capital into schools but also to advise them on how to grow their sports business. And athletic departments are openly wrestling over what the ruling means for the future of Olympic sports on campus. Most of these sports do not generate much revenue, but American campuses serve as the primary Olympic training ground for Team USA. The settlement largely immunizes the NCAA against similar claims, a provision the association considered essential as it seeks to move past decades of court battles over payments for players. But it will almost certainly not end litigation over the shape of college sports. It isn't clear whether the money needs to be distributed equitably in accordance with Title IX, the federal statute that requires publicly funded institutions to provide equal opportunities to male and female athletes. Aside from preparing for schools to distribute roughly $20 million a year to athletes, the settlement didn't specify how exactly much should be allocated to each sport. The majority will likely go to football, the financial engine of most athletic departments, as well as men's basketball. Female athletes have raised questions over the payouts they are set to receive and what fair compensation looks like for them going forward. 'This settlement doesn't come close to recognizing the value I lost,' LSU gymnast Livvy Dunne said in an unsuccessful attempt to object to the settlement. There's also the open question of whether athletes getting paid by their institutions are working for them—a distinction that could open up schools to more legal challenges. But even without employee status, the settlement will transform the relationship between players and schools. Write to Louise Radnofsky at Laine Higgins at and Rachel Bachman at
CNN
38 minutes ago
- CNN
Federal judge approves $2.8B settlement, paving way for US colleges to pay athletes millions
A federal judge signed off on arguably the biggest change in the history of college sports on Friday, clearing the way for schools to begin paying their athletes millions of dollars as soon as next month as the multibillion-dollar industry shreds the last vestiges of the amateur model that defined it for more than a century. Nearly five years after Arizona State swimmer Grant House sued the NCAA and its five biggest conferences to lift restrictions on revenue sharing, U.S. Judge Claudia Wilken approved the final proposal that had been hung up on roster limits, just one of many changes ahead amid concerns that thousands of walk-on athletes will lose their chance to play college sports. The sweeping terms of the so-called House settlement include approval for each school to share up to $20.5 million with athletes over the next year and $2.7 billion that will be paid over the next decade to thousands of former players who were barred from that revenue for years. The agreement brings a seismic shift to hundreds of schools that were forced to reckon with the reality that their players are the ones producing the billions in TV and other revenue, mostly through football and basketball, that keep this machine humming. The scope of the changes — some have already begun — is difficult to overstate. The professionalization of college athletics will be seen in the high-stakes and expensive recruitment of stars on their way to the NFL and NBA, and they will be felt by athletes whose schools have decided to pare their programs. The agreement will resonate in nearly every one of the NCAA's 1,100 member schools boasting nearly 500,000 athletes. Wilken's ruling comes 11 years after she dealt the first significant blow to the NCAA ideal of amateurism when she ruled in favor of former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon and others who were seeking a way to earn money from the use of their name, image and likeness (NIL) — a term that is now as common in college sports as 'March Madness' or 'Roll Tide.' It was just four years ago that the NCAA cleared the way for NIL money to start flowing, but the changes coming are even bigger. Wilken granted preliminary approval to the settlement last October. That sent colleges scurrying to determine not only how they were going to afford the payments, but how to regulate an industry that also allows players to cut deals with third parties so long as they are deemed compliant by a newly formed enforcement group that will be run by auditors at Deloitte. The agreement takes a big chunk of oversight away from the NCAA and puts it in the hands of the four biggest conferences. The ACC, Big Ten, Big 12 and SEC hold most of the power and decision-making heft, especially when it comes to the College Football Playoff, which is the most significant financial driver in the industry and is not under the NCAA umbrella like the March Madness tournaments are. The list of winners and losers is long and, in some cases, hard to tease out. A rough guide of winners would include football and basketball stars at the biggest schools, which will devote much of their bankroll to signing and retaining them. For instance, Michigan quarterback Bryce Underwood's NIL deal is reportedly worth between $10.5 million and $12 million. Losers will be the walk-ons and partial scholarship athletes whose spots are gone. One of the adjustments made at Wilken's behest was to give those athletes a chance to return to the schools that cut them in anticipation of the deal going through. Also in limbo are Olympic sports many of those athletes play and that serve as the main pipeline for a U.S. team that has won the most medals at every Olympics since the downfall of the Soviet Union. All this is a price worth paying, according to the attorneys who crafted the settlement and argue they delivered exactly what they were asked for: an attempt to put more money in the pockets of the players whose sweat and toil keep people watching from the start of football season through March Madness and the College World Series in June. What the settlement does not solve is the threat of further litigation. Though this deal brings some uniformity to the rules, states still have separate laws regarding how NIL can be doled out, which could lead to legal challenges. NCAA President Charlie Baker has been consistent in pushing for federal legislation that would put college sports under one rulebook and, if he has his way, provide some form of antitrust protection to prevent the new model from being disrupted again.
Fox News
39 minutes ago
- Fox News
TSA tells Americans their Costco cards won't fly at airport security despite love for hot dogs
The Transportation Security Administration clarified this week that a Costco membership card is not sufficient to present at airport security. "We love hotdogs & rotisserie chickens as much as the next person but please stop telling people their Costco card counts as a REAL ID because it absolutely does not," the TSA wrote on Facebook Wednesday. The reminder comes less than a month after the U.S. began requiring a REAL ID driver's license when flying domestically May 7. Aside from REAL IDs, which have enhanced federal standards, domestic flyers can also use their passports or another federally-approved form of identification like Defense Department-issued IDs (but not a Costco card). "Department of Defense IDs for active and retired military continue to be an acceptable form of ID at TSA checkpoints following the implementation of REAL ID last month," the TSA wrote on Facebook Thursday. REAL IDs were available for years before the requirement went into effect after a 2005 law passed based on recommendations from the 9/11 Commission report. With many procrastinating until shortly before the deadline, DMV centers were inundated with long lines in April and early May, and there was confusion about what forms of identification, such as a passport, birth certificate or Social Security card, were acceptable at a DMV to secure a REAL ID.
