One year before the opening match of the 2026 FIFA World Cup, political developments in the United States are beginning to cast a shadow over the tournament’s build-up. What was intended to be a celebration of football’s global reach across three North American nations is now being met with questions about access, governance, and credibility.
The catalyst is President Donald Trump’s executive order, which introduces a travel ban targeting specific regions deemed “high risk.” Although the directive includes an exemption for athletes, coaches, and immediate relatives attending major international sporting events, including the World Cup and the Olympics, rights groups and legal observers have raised concerns about its wording and potential for inconsistent application.
The exemption states:
“Any athlete or member of an athletic team, including coaches, persons performing a necessary supporting role, and immediate relatives, travelling for the World Cup, Olympics, or any other major sporting event as determined by the secretary of state.”
While this clause technically shields players and support staff, advocates such as Human Rights Watch warn that unclear enforcement protocols could still result in delays, confusion, or unintentional restrictions, particularly for individuals from affected regions or those with dual citizenship.
With the U.S. scheduled to co-host not only the 2026 World Cup but also the 2025 FIFA Club World Cup (Starting June 14th) and the 2028 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles, international attention is now focused on how these policies will impact athletes, media, and fans travelling to American soil.
Several fan-led campaigns and legal organisations have begun calling for further clarification from the U.S. State Department, while others have gone further, urging teams to consider boycotting matches hosted in the United States if concerns remain unresolved.
Compounding the tension is a separate issue involving FIFA President Gianni Infantino, whose recent political engagements have reignited long-standing debates over FIFA’s neutrality and internal governance.
Last month, Infantino declined to attend his organisation’s annual congress, instead appearing in Qatar and Saudi Arabia for meetings with President Trump and regional leaders. The optics of the visit, particularly its overlap with key political discussions, were immediately scrutinised by media outlets and UEFA officials, some of whom staged a walkout in protest.
Minky Worden, director of global initiatives at Human Rights Watch, commented on the visit, stating that Infantino “must detail precisely what it achieved for football and human rights.” The trip has become part of a wider narrative surrounding FIFA’s relationships with authoritarian regimes and its handling of global hosting rights.
Earlier this year, Saudi Arabia was awarded hosting rights for the 2034 World Cup, a decision made without a formal bidding process. That move, while compliant with FIFA’s internal policies, was met with widespread criticism by human rights organisations and some national associations, who argued it undermined the reforms FIFA introduced following the corruption scandals of the Sepp Blatter era.
For critics of the current system, these two stories, Trump’s immigration policy and Infantino’s diplomatic itinerary, are not isolated. They’re seen as part of a broader concern about the intersection of sport and geopolitics, where transparency, accountability, and equal access are increasingly viewed through the lens of power dynamics.
On social media, fans and activists have drawn comparisons between Trump and Infantino, pointing to their respective associations with wealthy Gulf states and their roles in reshaping global institutions. While some of the commentary is satirical, others have used the moment to raise serious questions about FIFA’s direction and its ability to separate football from state agendas.
The possibility of a partial boycott, where teams or supporters would opt to attend matches in Canada and Mexico but avoid U.S.-based fixtures, is now being actively discussed in activist circles and online forums. While no official federation has formally endorsed such action, several are said to be monitoring the situation closely. National teams are also expected to seek legal guidance in the months leading up to the tournament to ensure compliance with both domestic laws and host nation entry policies.
FIFA has not publicly addressed the boycott discourse, nor has it commented on Infantino’s recent meetings. The U.S. government, for its part, has reiterated that the executive order’s exemptions cover all relevant parties involved in international sporting events, but has not issued additional details about how the policy will be applied in practice.
Calls for neutrality in global sport are nothing new, but the current moment reflects an evolution in the conversation. In recent years, sports have been pulled into political debates with increasing frequency. The boundaries between sports governance and state interests have become more porous, and the expectations on institutions like FIFA have shifted.
The 2026 World Cup remains on schedule, with games set to take place across 16 cities in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. Its expanded format, featuring 48 teams for the first time, was designed to reflect the growth of the sport and the increasing global diversity of its audience. Whether it can live up to that ambition, without becoming entangled in larger political battles, is now a question many are asking.
There is still time for clarification, dialogue, and recalibration. But with pressure mounting from fans, NGOs, and commentators across multiple continents, the months ahead will likely test FIFA’s leadership and its ability to ensure that the world’s biggest sporting event remains accessible.
Do I think we’ll see actual team boycotts? No. National associations tend to operate with caution, and most will prioritise competitive participation over protest. The World Cup? In the U.S.? That’s likely too big of a PR opportunity for some nations to try and shape global opinion.
The tension lies in the gap between policy and perception, between legal language and lived experience. For FIFA, the challenge is less about legislating fairness and more about demonstrating that football remains open and free of unnecessary political entanglement.
Football is a truly global game. FIFA regularly positions itself as a champion of inclusion, unity, and opportunity for all. But that ambition is constantly tested when politics and geopolitics clash with logistics and optics.
These are the complexities FIFA must reckon with, not just in how it communicates, but in who it partners with, where it plants its flags, and what that signals to the world watching. Hosting the World Cup has always been a powerful symbol. In 2026, it will also be a test of whether global sport can live up to the ideals it so often proclaims.
It’s not an easy task. But perhaps that’s all the more reason for those in charge to maintain distance from overt political alliances, because when the lines between sport and state are already blurred, getting too close only makes them harder to define.
