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

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

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

Have We Become Too Reliant on AI?

  • Writer: Paul Francis
    Paul Francis
  • Jun 13, 2025
  • 2 min read

The ongoing unrest in Los Angeles has escalated, with President Donald Trump deploying the National Guard and Marines in an attempt to clamp down on protests. This move has drawn criticism, particularly after images surfaced showing Guardsmen sleeping on cold floors in public buildings—images that quickly sparked outrage. But this article isn’t really about that. Well, not directly.


What’s more concerning is what happened next.

As these images began circulating online, a troubling trend emerged. People started questioning their authenticity, not based on verified information or investigative journalism, but on what artificial intelligence told them. Accusations of “fake news”, “AI-generated images”, or “doctored photos” spread rapidly. Rather than consulting reputable sources, many turned to AI tools to determine what was real.


And they trusted the answers without hesitation.


These AI models, often perceived as neutral, trustworthy, and authoritative, told users that although the images were real, they weren’t recent. According to the models, the photos dated back to 2021 and were taken overseas. The implication? They had nothing to do with the situation unfolding in Los Angeles.


People believed it. Anyone suggesting otherwise was dismissed as misinformed or biased. The idea that these images were being used to fuel an anti-Trump agenda gained traction, all because an algorithm said so.


But there’s one major flaw: the AI was wrong.


These images didn’t exist online before June 2025. They aren’t from 2021. They weren’t taken abroad. They are, in fact, current and accurate, just as the original reports stated. But because AI tools misidentified them, many dismissed the truth. This isn’t just a harmless mistake; it’s a serious issue.

We are placing too much trust in machines that cannot offer certainty. These tools don’t rely on real-time data or fact-checking methods; they generate responses based on probabilities and patterns in the data they’ve been trained on. And when those outputs are flawed, people can be dangerously misled.


So what happens when more and more people begin to trust AI over journalists, subject matter experts, or even their own eyes?


We risk entering a reality where truth is no longer defined by facts, but by algorithms—where something can be deemed false not because it lacks evidence, but because a machine didn’t recognise it. If we reach that point, how do we challenge power? How do we uphold accountability? How do we know what’s real?


AI is a remarkable tool. But it is just that—a tool. And when tools are treated as infallible, the consequences can be far-reaching. If we blindly trust AI to define our reality, we may find ourselves living in a world where facts are optional, and truth becomes whatever the machine decides it is.

bottom of page