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

The Insatiable Greed of the Ultra-Rich: When Billions Aren’t Enough

Connor Banks
Feb 17, 2025
2 min read

In today’s world, the sheer amount of wealth concentrated in the hands of a small group of billionaires is beyond comprehension. Figures like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg command fortunes that stretch well into the hundreds of billions, an amount so vast that even losing 99.999% of their wealth would still leave them among the world’s financial elite. Yet, despite this unimaginable level of prosperity, their hunger for more remains insatiable.

Unfathomable Wealth

To put their wealth into perspective, let’s consider the case of Elon Musk, who currently holds a net worth of approximately $394 billion. If he were to lose 99.999% of his fortune, he would still have $3.94 million, a sum that places him in the top 0.2% of global wealth holders. Similarly, Steve Ballmer, the tenth richest billionaire, would retain $1.45 million if subjected to the same hypothetical loss. These figures highlight the extent to which the world’s billionaires operate in an entirely different financial reality than the rest of us.

For the majority of the global population, accumulating even $1 million is an unattainable dream. Roughly 50% of the world lives with less than $10,000 to their name, while nearly 90% have less than $100,000. This disparity makes it clear that the elite’s definition of financial loss is vastly different from what the average person experiences.

The Greed for More

Despite their astronomical wealth, billionaires continue to chase more profits, tax breaks, and financial leverage. Musk, for example, has aggressively expanded his businesses, cutting costs wherever possible, often at the expense of employees. Jeff Bezos, despite owning Amazon, a trillion-dollar empire, has fought against worker unionisation efforts and resisted wage increases. Even Warren Buffett, a so-called "humble billionaire," actively lobbies against higher corporate taxes. Their actions beg the question: How much wealth is enough?

The Ethics of Hoarding Billions

At what point does wealth accumulation become morally indefensible? If one individual possesses more money than entire nations, yet refuses to pay workers a living wage or contribute fairly to social programmes, should they be celebrated as "self-made success stories" or criticised for unchecked greed?

The argument that billionaires have "earned" their fortunes ignores the fact that their wealth is largely built on the labour of others. Without factory workers, warehouse staff, engineers, and countless others, these billionaires would have nothing. Yet, they often do everything in their power to minimise their financial obligations to those same workers, ensuring that the rich stay rich and the poor remain struggling.

The Bottom Line

The world’s billionaires do not just have wealth, they have too much wealth. And the fact that even losing nearly all of it would still leave them in a financial position stronger than 99% of the population shows just how broken the system is. Yet, their pursuit of even greater riches remains relentless. Whether it’s through tax loopholes, stock manipulations, or labour exploitation, the ultra-rich are never satisfied.

At some point, society must ask: Why do we allow so few people to hoard so much, while so many struggle to survive? Until this question is seriously addressed, the wealth gap will continue to grow, at the expense of billions of people who will never even come close to the wealth these individuals could lose overnight without consequence.