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

Why Some Websites May Leave the UK Over Online Safety Rules

Paul Francis
Sep 4, 2025
3 min read

The UK’s Online Safety Act, passed in 2023, is beginning to reshape how people experience the internet in Britain. While much of the legislation has yet to come into force, some of its requirements are already being felt. With stricter rules set to take effect in September, questions are being raised about whether the UK’s digital landscape could be permanently changed.

Blue fiber optic cables emit glowing light with a dark background, creating a futuristic and dynamic atmosphere.

At its core, the Act is designed to make online spaces safer by holding tech platforms accountable for harmful content. This means services of all sizes, from global giants to small community forums, must assess and mitigate risks such as child exploitation, harassment, misinformation, and access to adult material. But how these responsibilities are enforced, and whether every platform is willing or able to comply, is where the complications begin.

Early Changes and Adjustments

Some companies have already begun reshaping how their services work in the UK. Steam, one of the world’s largest video game platforms, recently introduced a stricter credit card verification system in Britain, designed to restrict under-18s from accessing adult-rated games. Other platforms have implemented stronger age checks or limited features that could expose children to inappropriate material.

Steam has introduced stricter Credit Card verification

Not every company is willing to adapt, however. Wikipedia has openly questioned whether it can realistically comply with the Act. Its non-profit structure, reliance on volunteer moderation, and commitment to user privacy make it unlikely to adopt age verification or sweeping content controls. The Wikimedia Foundation has warned that if forced to implement intrusive measures, it may consider withdrawing services from the UK altogether.

Resistance and Concerns

It is not just Wikipedia sounding alarms. Smaller online communities and specialist forums argue that the Act favours large, well-funded platforms that can afford to build complex moderation systems. For independent websites, compliance could mean costly technical overhauls or the risk of heavy fines. There are fears that some may choose to block UK users rather than take on new legal and financial risks.

Laptop screen showing the Wikipedia homepage in a web browser. Background is softly blurred with warm tones, suggesting a cozy indoor setting. — ***Wikipedia has warned it may withdraw services in the UK***

Tech giants, meanwhile, have expressed their own reservations. While companies like Meta, TikTok, and X (formerly Twitter) have pledged to follow the law, they continue to push back against specific provisions, particularly those requiring proactive removal of harmful but legal content. Critics argue that this places platforms in the role of arbiters of free speech, forcing them to make subjective decisions under threat of penalty.

What Happens in September

The most significant shift is expected in September, when further stipulations of the Act are set to take effect. Age verification requirements for adult content sites are likely to be enforced, echoing earlier debates around proposed online pornography restrictions that collapsed in 2019. This time, however, the rules come with more teeth: websites that fail to comply could face fines of up to 10% of global revenue or even be blocked entirely by UK internet providers.

The introduction of these measures could see a wave of disruption. Adult content platforms, gambling sites, and online services with mature-rated material are likely to be most immediately affected. But ripple effects may extend much further, impacting creative communities, independent publishers, and even gaming services if strict verification rules are applied broadly.

The Future of the UK Internet

Supporters of the Online Safety Act argue that these changes are long overdue. They point to the harm caused by online abuse, the easy availability of explicit material, and the difficulty parents face in monitoring children’s digital lives. For them, forcing platforms to take responsibility is a necessary step toward a safer internet.

Gamer with headphones focused on a video game. Colorful keyboard, intense screen reflections, dim gaming room setting.

Opponents counter that the measures are heavy-handed and risk creating a two-tier internet where UK users are cut off from parts of the global web. They warn that age verification systems could undermine privacy, increase data risks, and erode digital freedoms. If major services were to withdraw or limit access, Britain could find itself with a diminished internet compared to the rest of the world.

As September approaches, the question is less about whether the Act will change the internet in the UK, but by how much. What began as a promise to protect users may well mark the start of a more fragmented and tightly controlled online experience, one where availability and freedom depend on a platform’s ability — or willingness — to comply.