Is FIFA considering moving the World Cup out of U.S.? Why it's unlikely
Over the past few months, the world has witnessed the Trump administration's increasingly hardline stance on immigration result in visitors getting detained for weeks, people being sent to El Salvadoran torture prisons without due process and, most recently, the deployment of U.S. military personnel in Los Angeles.
It's all led to a reasonable question: How can FIFA allow this version of the U.S. to co-host the 2026 World Cup?
After all, in a press conference alongside FIFA president Gianni Infantino, U.S. vice president JD Vance even joked about detaining visitors who overstayed their welcome after the World Cup. It set the tone for a U.S. World Cup that will be openly hostile to foreign visitors and run antithetical to the global event's spirit.
But anyone who expects FIFA to hold the U.S. accountable or to even consider the relocation of 2026's World Cup is setting themselves up for disappointment. FIFA's recent history shows exactly why.
At face value, the deployment of U.S. troops to confront civilians should be a red line for FIFA. But there's already precedent in FIFA looking the other way on similar operations.
In the lead-up to the 2014 World Cup in Brazil, the Brazilian government established a Pacifying Police Unit to essentially target any suspected criminal in Rio de Janeiro's sprawling favelas (slums). The "pacification" was a chilling misnomer as the UPP frequently engaged in violence and was accused of extrajudicial executions. Disappearances surged in the years leading up to the World Cup.
Then, in March of 2014, Brazil sent in the actual military — 2,700 army soldiers — to occupy Rio's favelas through the end of July. Again, here was a country using its military as an occupying force against its own civilians, and FIFA didn't threaten Brazil's hosting status.
The 2018 World Cup saw FIFA allow Russia to host despite a government that's known to violently quell dissent. This was before Russia launched its full-scale war in Ukraine, but Russian president Vladimir Putin had already annexed Crimea amid global outrage. Russia's hosting privileges were also acquired through a massive bribery scandal, and Russia's open hostility to the LGBTQ+ community had visitors concerned about their safety.
FIFA's solution? It established an anonymous tipline to report homophobic harassment while still allowing Russia to ban Pride flags at matches.
And, of course, there was the 2022 World Cup in Qatar where stadium infrastructure was built through modern-day slave labor that resulted in an estimated 6,500 deaths. FIFA ignored the global outcry about the tournament (acquired through the same corrupt means as Russia) and Qatar's poor human rights record.
The only change FIFA really made was to move the tournament to the winter in order to avoid Qatar's devastating summer heat. Infantino watched the World Cup final in a suite alongside Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud — who approved the 2018 murder of American journalist Jamal Khashoggi, according to CIA reporting.
On social media, there have been rumors and 'reports' that FIFA is so concerned with the U.S. political climate that the World Cup could be moved entirely to co-hosts Mexico and Canada. But thus far, there is no evidence at all to support that claim and no indication from FIFA that it's even being considered.
An AI-generated post on TikTok went viral that claimed Trump could jeopardize the World Cup for the U.S., but like many AI-generated videos, it was straight-up misinformation.
Actually, yes! On Wednesday, FIFA released a statement to celebrate the one-year mark out from the 2026 World Cup.
It said:
The 2026 edition is expected to welcome 6.5 million fans to stadiums across Canada, Mexico and the United States – truly uniting the continent and globe through football.
'One year from now, the greatest football show on the planet will definitely captivate the world like never before,' said FIFA President Gianni Infantino. 'This is more than a tournament, it's a global celebration of connection, unity and passion. From every corner of the world, dreams are turning into reality as teams qualify and fans make their plans to be part of history, counting down to the biggest FIFA World Cup yet.'
On Wednesday, it was confirmed that ICE and CBP would have a presence through the Club World Cup taking place this summer in the U.S., starting with Saturday's opener in Miami.
ICE claimed that it would just be there to provide 'security,' but DHS did urge fans to have proof of legal status, which was, uh, ominous. Infantino was asked if he had any concerns about potential immigration operations taking place at matches, and the FIFA president spoke favorably about it all.
He said:
"No, I don't have any concerns about anything in the sense that we are very attentive on any security question. Of course, the most important for us is to guarantee security for all the fans who come to the games. This is our priority. This is the priority of all the authorities who are here. And we want everyone who comes to the games to pass a good moment."
Yikes.
This late in the process, it's almost beyond the realm of possibility for FIFA to strip the U.S. of hosting rights.
It would take a massive opposition from competing federations with top teams boycotting the games and sponsors like Coca-Cola and Anheuser-Busch InBev pulling support. But it's highly doubtful two U.S.-based companies would work to have a World Cup moved out of the U.S.
FIFA was prepared to allow Russia to compete in the 2022 World Cup qualifiers even amid the Ukraine invasion, and it took teams being willing to forfeit in protest for UEFA and FIFA to make a decision to ban Russia.
But until the U.S. faces that kind of backlash on a global scale, don't count on FIFA to do anything about it. The organization has shown what it's about countless times already.
This article originally appeared on For The Win: Is FIFA considering moving the World Cup out of the U.S.?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Exclusive: Trump's tariff deal ‘quietly' added 10% raise which nobody is complaining about anymore, says his former commerce secretary
Wilbur Ross, former Commerce Secretary and a key architect of Trump's first-term trade policy, describes Trump's current tariff strategy as a deliberate evolution: moving faster, hitting harder, and using broader executive powers to impose tariffs for both economic and diplomatic leverage. The Trump administration's use of tariffs has sparked debate over the ultimate goals of its economic strategy. However, a former Cabinet member and key trade advisor to the President has suggested there is an underlying logic to the approach. Since winning the Oval Office, President Trump has announced an evolving range of policies. with economic sanctions spinning higher on some trade partners while others have been granted pauses. Many of the announcements have not come through official White House channels; for example, Trump threatened a 50% tariff on the EU in April in a bid to get European negotiators to the table—by posting on his social media site, Truth Social. Indeed, Trump has come under scrutiny from Beijing, arguably the most critical region for the U.S. to make a deal, who claim America's tariff tactics have been 'coercion and blackmail' when instead it should 'convey information to the Chinese side…through relevant parties.' But Wilbur Ross, Trump's Commerce Secretary in his first administration, says there's a clear tactic at play beneath Trump's bluster. The 87-year-old banker turned D.C. power player said there is an 'art' to Trump's dealmaking, as White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has suggested; Ross told Fortune in an exclusive interview: 'Well, everybody's reaction to [tariffs] was first shock and amazement, but the actual retaliatory measures that they put in were fairly modest—even China didn't match in dollar for dollar. 'There's a real reason for that, I think the other countries, as they've thought about it, have recognized that while they have to talk very bravely for their domestic political constituencies… They also recognize that at the end of the day, they can't afford a tit-for-tat escalating trade war with us.' And this was a fact Trump was relying on, continued Ross: 'One of the earliest things he put in was that 10% tariff on everything from everywhere. 'Nobody is even complaining about that anymore. When you think about it, in the normal course, getting quietly to do a 10% tariff on everything from everywhere was a huge achievement, even if he didn't get anything else. But because he followed it with these much more extreme things, it makes the 10% look like it's not such a big bother. 'But it's a huge number, and he's been collecting it every day.' Indeed, imported goods alone into the U.S. in 2024 stood at $3.36 trillion—even before tax, duties, and levies were collected (worth $82 billion) and before imported services are added to those figures. Even 10% of near-$3.4 trillion is an eye-watering sum to add to federal budgets, though some items like autos and steel are even higher. Indeed nations like China, Canada, and Mexico are all already subject to more than the baseline 10% universal tariff. When Ross spoke to Fortune in a previous exclusive interview earlier this year, he said President Trump would be all the more confident in his second term because he now better understands the inner workings of Washington, D.C., and has a stronger mandate courtesy of a solid election sweep. And President Trump's tactics, which have included everything from threatening a 25% hike on Apple's iPhones specifically to raising sanctions to more than 150% on China at some points, reflect the path Ross expected. After all, as Secretary, Ross was one of the key allies in Trump's team when renegotiating America's position on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). At the time, Trump was a fierce critic of the deal with Mexico and Canada and wanted to withdraw from the agreement and begin negotiating from there. Ross felt the better tactic was to threaten such action and keep an exit as a last resort, an opinion that Trump eventually came around to agreeing with. Likewise, having been appointed in 2017 Ross oversaw the tariff action in the first Trump administration which included sanctions on Chinese goods as well as aluminum and steel more widely. 'He has started out on a much more adventurous path than last time,' Ross told Fortune this week. 'Broader in scope and more extreme in terms of the numbers themselves.' Trump has three objectives, he adds: shrinking trade deficits, producing revenue to offset his 'One Big, Beautiful Bill' and achieving other diplomatic purposes such as the flow of fentanyl into the U.S. and global defense spending. 'He has a much more fulsome, much more complicated agenda than before,' Ross explains. 'It's also different in…that last time I was very careful to set the groundwork to do public hearings, stakeholder meetings, to do written reports, to set a whole record so that under the Administrative Procedures Act we would be relatively safe from people trying to knock it out in court. 'This time, they did a very different thing. They went in mostly just by his say so using the IFA, the Emergency Powers Act, and they ran into a snag at the Court for International Trade.' This snag may alter the course of tariff reaction on the account of businesses, he added, because their investment timelines may shift based on when the tariffs are legally approved. But Ross added: 'Most people are operating under the assumption that sooner or later, he'll get something like what he was looking for…and therefore, while it's slowed down a bit, [I] don't think it will derail [trade talks] because [foreign governments] also know there are other ways he could punish them rather than just the tariffs. 'So it's a bump in the road, but I don't think it's a huge pothole that would wreck the car.' This story was originally featured on
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Oil prices jump after Israel's attack on Iran and it could lead to higher gas costs
Oil prices have jumped following Israel's attack on Iran as experts warn the conflict could lead to higher gas costs. The price of a barrel of benchmark U.S. crude jumped 6.8 percent to $72.65 Friday. Brent crude, the international standard, rose 7.1 percent to $74.30 a barrel. 'Gas prices will likely start to rise across much of the country later this evening in response to Israel's attacks on Iran, which have caused oil prices to surge. For now, I expect the rise to be noticable, but limited. Approx 10-25c/gal thus far, but this could change,' industry expert Patrick De Haan wrote on X. Iran is one of the world's major producers of oil and if a wider war escalates, it could slow the flow of Iranian oil to U.S. customers and elsewhere. 'Iran knows full well that Trump is focused on lower energy prices and actions by Iran that impact Middle East supply and consequently raise oil prices damage Trump politically,' Andy Lipow, president of Lipow Oil Associates consulting firm, told CNN. Past attacks involving Iran and Israel have seen prices for oil spike initially, only to fall later 'once it became clear that the situation was not escalating and there was no impact on oil supply,' said Richard Joswick, head of near-term oil at S&P Global Commodity Insights. The Secretary of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries warned industry executives not to 'raise false alarms.' 'There are currently no developments in supply or market dynamics that warrant unnecessary measures,' the organization said on X. Israel said 200 fighter jets took part in strikes on more than 100 targets in Iran overnight in an escalation that threatens to spark a wider conflict in the Middle East. Israel said Iran has launched more than 100 drones towards Israel in response - but Tehran has denied these reports, according to Iranian media. Trump firmly put the U.S. in Israel's corner after the attacks. The president said he'd given Tehran 'chance after chance to make a deal' that would have headed off the strikes by putting restrictions on the country's nuclear weapons program and complained that Iranian negotiators had never been able to come to an agreement. 'I gave Iran chance after chance to make a deal. I told them, in the strongest of words, to 'just do it,' but no matter how hard they tried, no matter how close they got, they just couldn't get it done,' he wrote on Truth Social. Trump also said he'd warned Iran that Israel 'has a lot' of American-made military hardware — 'the best and most lethal' — and is quite proficient in using it. 'Certain Iranian hardliner's spoke bravely, but they didn't know what was about to happen. They are all DEAD now, and it will only get worse!' he added. 'Iran must make a deal, before there is nothing left. No more death, no more destruction, JUST DO IT, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE,' the president wrote. The Associated Press contributed reporting Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Wall Street Journal
12 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
If Not Washington, Who Will Fund Harvard?
Jason Riley describes how Harvard has become a punching bag for political grandstanding ('Does the President Want to Fix Harvard or Destroy It?,'Upward Mobility, May 28). Yet the Trump administration swings at its peril. Harvard isn't a delicate orchid that will fold under political heat. It's a $53 billion juggernaut with labs, patents and partnerships that span the globe. If Washington starts revoking grants, threatening tax status or chilling academic freedom to score points with the base, Harvard isn't going to sit tight until President Trump is over. It's going to pivot—aggressively. Someone else, be it Berlin, Seoul or Abu Dhabi, will fund it. The idea that the greatest minds in medicine, energy and artificial intelligence will suddenly transfer their breakthroughs to a U.S. government-licensed trade school is laughable. In a century where data, biotech and artificial intelligence are the new oil, dismantling our own research powerhouse is like banning railroads in 1900 because the engineers read Karl Marx.
