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 Sizzling Saga of Burger King and Hungry Jack’s: A Tale of Whoppers, Trademarks, and Triumph Down Under

Connor Banks
Aug 22, 2024
3 min read

As the UK celebrates National Burger Day, it's the perfect time to sink our teeth into one of the most intriguing stories in the fast-food world—a saga that blends business rivalry, legal drama, and a dash of Aussie ingenuity. This is the story of how Burger King, the iconic American fast-food giant, was forced to reinvent itself in Australia under the now-beloved name: Hungry Jack’s.

The Early Days: When Whoppers Went Down Under

In the early 1970s, Burger King had its sights set on global expansion, eager to bring its flame-grilled Whoppers to new shores. Australia, with its rapidly growing fast-food market, was a prime target. The plan seemed straightforward—open a series of Burger King restaurants and replicate the success seen across the United States. But as the company was about to find out, the land down under had a few surprises in store.

Upon attempting to register the "Burger King" trademark in Australia, the corporation encountered an unexpected hurdle. The name "Burger King" had already been trademarked by a small takeaway shop in Adelaide, South Australia. This seemingly minor roadblock would set the stage for one of the most fascinating branding stories in fast-food history.

The Birth of Hungry Jack’s

Enter Jack Cowin, a Canadian-born entrepreneur who had recently moved to Australia. Cowin held the franchise rights for Burger King in Australia and was keen to get the business off the ground. With the "Burger King" name off-limits, Cowin and the Burger King Corporation had to think fast. They landed on "Hungry Jack’s," a name inspired by Cowin himself and a pancake mix called "Hungry Jack" that was owned by Pillsbury, Burger King’s parent company at the time.

And so, in 1971, the first Hungry Jack’s restaurant opened its doors in the Perth suburb of Innaloo, Western Australia. The brand quickly became a hit with Aussies, offering the same flame-grilled burgers, fries, and shakes that had made Burger King a household name in America. But while the food was familiar, the name "Hungry Jack’s" soon took on a life of its own, becoming synonymous with quality burgers across Australia.

The Trademark Tangle and a Battle of the Brands

For years, the trademark dispute between Burger King and the small Adelaide shop simmered quietly. But in the 1990s, the original "Burger King" trademark lapsed, and the Burger King Corporation saw its chance to finally bring its brand name to Australia. They began opening Burger King-branded restaurants in areas where Hungry Jack’s had not yet expanded, hoping to establish a presence under their original moniker.

This move sparked a fierce rivalry. Jack Cowin, who had built Hungry Jack’s into a thriving national chain, felt betrayed. He believed Burger King’s actions violated their franchise agreement and were an attempt to muscle him out of the market. The tension escalated into a full-blown legal battle that would eventually reshape the fast-food landscape in Australia.

The Legal Showdown and Victory for Hungry Jack’s

In the early 2000s, Hungry Jack’s took Burger King Corporation to court, accusing them of breaching their contract. The case became a high-profile showdown, with both sides determined to win. In 2001, the Supreme Court of New South Wales ruled in favour of Hungry Jack’s, awarding significant damages to the company and effectively barring Burger King from opening new Burger King-branded restaurants in Australia.

The ruling was a major victory for Jack Cowin and Hungry Jack’s. Not only did it affirm Cowin’s right to operate without interference, but it also led to a remarkable turn of events—Burger King Corporation decided to withdraw from the Australian market entirely. In 2002, they sold their Australian operations to Hungry Jack’s, which promptly rebranded all existing Burger King outlets under its own name.

A Whopper of a Legacy

Today, Hungry Jack’s stands as one of Australia’s most beloved fast-food chains, with over 400 locations across the country. While the brand remains closely aligned with Burger King in terms of menu and offerings, the name "Hungry Jack’s" has become an iconic part of Australia’s culinary landscape.

As we celebrate National Burger Day here in the UK, the story of Burger King and Hungry Jack’s reminds us that the world of fast food is not just about tasty burgers and fries—it’s also about the power of branding, the complexities of global expansion, and the indomitable spirit of those who refuse to back down in the face of adversity.

So, as you enjoy your next Whopper, spare a thought for the fascinating journey it took to get from the grill to your plate, especially if you ever find yourself Down Under, where a Whopper by any other name is still just as sweet (and savoury).