A World Cup Under Pressure: How American Politics Could Shape FIFA 2026

20 January 2026

Paul Francis

Want your article or story on our site? Contact us here

The FIFA World Cup is meant to be football’s great unifier. Every four years, politics is supposed to fade into the background as supporters cross borders to follow their teams. Yet as the 2026 tournament approaches, concerns are growing that the political climate in the United States may be doing the opposite.

Soccer ball with US flag design on grass field in stadium. Blurred crowd and scoreboard in background. Bright, sunny atmosphere.

Recent comments and policy signals from President Donald Trump have reignited anxieties among fans, organisers and civil rights groups. While football itself remains as popular as ever, the environment surrounding the tournament is becoming increasingly complicated, raising questions about travel, ticket sales and whether the world’s biggest sporting event can truly remain separate from domestic politics.

Politics enters the picture again

Donald Trump’s return to the centre of American politics has brought renewed focus on immigration, border enforcement and national security. His language around immigration has hardened, and his administration has signalled a tougher stance on visas and border controls. For many international football supporters, particularly those travelling from Europe, Africa and South America, this has raised uncomfortable questions.

Online, concerns have circulated about the visibility of immigration enforcement agencies and the risk of being caught up in aggressive border or visa checks. While some of these fears are undoubtedly amplified by social media, they are not appearing in a vacuum. Advocacy groups have formally raised concerns with FIFA about whether fans from certain regions will face additional scrutiny or barriers when travelling to the United States.

For some supporters, the idea of spending thousands of pounds on tickets and travel only to face uncertainty at the border is enough to pause or reconsider plans. It is here that the politics of Captain Orange begin to intersect directly with football.

Are ticket sales really struggling?

The picture around ticket sales is mixed and often misunderstood. FIFA has reported extremely strong global demand across several ticket application phases, with millions of requests submitted worldwide. On paper, this suggests the tournament is not in danger of empty stadiums.

However, critics point to a different issue. While demand exists, actual purchases appear uneven, especially at the higher price points. There have been persistent reports of slower sales for certain matches and categories, particularly among travelling supporters who are weighing cost against political and logistical risk.

In other words, the concern is not a lack of interest in football. It is hesitation. Fans are watching, waiting and calculating whether the experience will justify the expense and uncertainty.

The cost of attending the World Cup

Price is one of the most significant factors shaping that calculation. The 2026 World Cup is shaping up to be one of the most expensive in history.

The cheapest group stage tickets have been priced at around sixty dollars, but these are limited and often difficult to secure. More realistic prices for popular group matches run into the hundreds, with premium seats climbing well above two thousand dollars.

Knockout rounds are another level entirely. Quarter final and semi final tickets can cost several thousand dollars, while premium seats for the final in New Jersey have been listed at over six thousand dollars at face value. On secondary markets, prices can climb even higher.

For many fans, particularly from Europe and South America, these figures sit alongside the cost of long haul flights, accommodation and internal travel across a vast host country. The result is a World Cup that feels financially distant from the traditional supporter.

Travel, visas and fear of uncertainty

Beyond cost, travel logistics are adding another layer of anxiety. The United States is hosting the majority of matches across a geographically enormous area. Fans may need to fly thousands of miles between cities, navigate unfamiliar transport systems and deal with complex visa requirements.

Recent tightening of visa rules and public rhetoric around immigration enforcement have not helped perceptions. Reports of fans from African nations struggling with visa delays or rejections have circulated widely, even if they do not represent the majority experience.

The problem is not necessarily policy itself, but uncertainty. When supporters feel unclear about how they will be treated on arrival, or whether rules may change suddenly, confidence erodes.

Other pressures on the tournament

The political environment is only one of several pressures facing the 2026 World Cup. Stadium readiness, security planning, climate concerns and the sheer scale of the expanded tournament all present challenges.

The United States is not a traditional football nation in the way Europe or South America is. While interest has grown rapidly, there are still questions about atmosphere, cultural familiarity and whether the event will feel like a World Cup rather than a series of high end entertainment events.

There is also a growing debate about whether FIFA’s commercial strategy is distancing the tournament from its roots. High prices, premium experiences and corporate packages may deliver revenue, but they risk sidelining the fans who give the World Cup its character.

A tournament caught between sport and state

None of this means the 2026 World Cup is doomed. Far from it. The global appetite for football remains immense, and millions will watch and attend regardless of political context. But it does suggest that the tournament is unusually exposed to forces beyond the pitch.

When the host nation’s political leadership becomes a source of anxiety rather than reassurance, it inevitably shapes perception. When attending feels like a financial gamble layered with political risk, some supporters will hesitate.

The World Cup has always existed within the world it inhabits. In 2026, that world includes heightened political tension, polarised leadership and rising costs. Whether football can rise above those pressures, or whether they will leave a lasting mark on the tournament, remains one of the most important unanswered questions heading into kick off.

Current Most Read

Reeves’ pubs U-turn: how business rates sparked a revolt, and why ministers are now under fire

When AI Crosses the Line: Why the Grok Controversy Has Triggered a Regulatory Reckoning

A World on Edge: The Rising Tide of Geoeconomic Confrontations in 2025

Paul Francis
May 28, 2025
3 min read

As the world grapples with economic volatility, global power shifts, and fractured alliances, a new form of conflict has emerged to shape the 21st-century geopolitical landscape: geoeconomic confrontation. Unlike the open warfare of the past, today’s great powers wield economic instruments as tools of coercion and influence, redrawing the contours of global relations without a single shot fired.

Cargo ship with colorful containers sails through blue ocean, leaving white waves behind. Clear sky and calm water create a serene mood.

This economic warfare is not merely a clash of trade policies but a deeply entrenched strategic contest. From tit-for-tat tariffs and sanctions to restrictions on critical technologies and raw materials, the economic battlefield is expanding across borders and industries with alarming speed.

The Shift in Global Risk Perceptions

According to the World Economic Forum's Global Risks Report 2025, geoeconomic confrontation now ranks among the top 10 global risks over the next two years, a marked rise from 14th place previously. The scale of concern is reflected in the dramatic increase in harmful trade interventions, which surged from 600 in 2017 to over 3,000 annually from 2022 to 2024.

The report warns of an "unprecedented degree of fragmentation in the global order," driven by eroding trust in institutions, fractured alliances, and the increasing use of economic tools as political weapons.

United States: Tariffs, Nationalism, and Economic Pressure

In 2025, the United States, under President Donald Trump’s second administration, has reasserted its protectionist economic vision. In a sweeping move, the administration imposed 25% tariffs on all imports from Mexico and most from Canada (excluding energy, which faced a 10% tariff). The U.S. framed the policy as a defence of domestic industry, but it swiftly sparked retaliatory tariffs and lawsuits at the World Trade Organization.

More dramatically, a new 34% "reciprocal tariff" on most Chinese imports marked a major escalation in U.S.-China economic tensions. China’s countermeasures included retaliatory tariffs, blacklisting American companies, and restricting the export of rare-earth elements critical to the tech and defence industries.

The fallout has rattled global markets, with business investment in the U.S. recording its sharpest six-month decline since the pandemic recovery period. Investors remain jittery amid rising costs, broken supply chains, and unpredictable policy shifts.

China: Economic Retaliation and Realignment

China has responded to U.S. aggression with a mix of assertiveness and strategy. It cut American oil imports by 90% and bolstered energy ties with Canada. Export controls on rare-earth metals—resources vital to semiconductors, batteries, and defence systems—sent shockwaves through tech industries worldwide.

Excavators and trucks operate in a large, dusty open-pit mine. Yellow machinery contrasts with the brown earth. Text reads "DT-0123."

At the same time, Beijing is seeking to shore up regional alliances. New trade frameworks with South Korea and Japan signal China’s intent to reduce reliance on Western markets and reroute supply chains through Asia. While the moves offer Beijing a measure of resilience, they also raise the spectre of competing economic blocs.

The European Union: Fragmented Unity, Strategic Dilemmas

The European Union finds itself increasingly caught in the middle of global economic rivalries. The bloc’s response to Russia’s war in Ukraine continues to strain internal consensus, with countries like Hungary threatening to veto further sanctions.

Amid this, the EU is seeking to bolster its economic sovereignty. Policy proposals to reduce reliance on the U.S. dollar in cross-border payments and develop independent financial mechanisms reflect growing discomfort with Washington’s dominance.

Yet the EU remains vulnerable. Efforts to sanction Russian energy, support Ukraine, and maintain a unified front against U.S. trade pressures are stretching the bloc’s political and economic cohesion.

Global Impacts: Fragmentation and Uncertainty

The global economy is feeling the ripple effects of these confrontations:

Supply Chains Under Strain: Industries dependent on cross-border logistics—from electronics to automotive manufacturing—face higher costs and delays.
Investment Paralysis: Heightened unpredictability deters foreign direct investment, with firms hesitant to commit capital in unstable regulatory environments.
Technological Decoupling: Competing standards, export restrictions, and bans on dual-use technologies threaten to fragment the global innovation ecosystem.

The International Monetary Fund has warned that if decoupling accelerates, long-term global GDP could shrink by up to 7%, with disproportionate impacts on developing economies.

Navigating a Turbulent Future

Governments, businesses, and multilateral institutions must act with foresight and adaptability. Strategies for resilience include:

Diversifying Trade Partners and Supply Chains: To reduce dependency on single-source nations.
Reinvigorating Global Institutions: WTO and IMF reforms could provide more equitable platforms for dispute resolution.
Investing in Strategic Autonomy: National industries critical to energy, health, and digital security must be prioritised.

As economic confrontation replaces conventional diplomacy, the world teeters on a knife-edge between strategic competition and systemic fragmentation. The next chapter of global order may not be written in treaties, but in tariffs.