All eyes were on the USA, Canada and Mexico for the last month or so, as the 2026 edition of the World Cup played out across the continent. Perhaps more than ever, eyes were equally drawn to events off the pitch, as political events became inexorably entwined with the football.

From travel bans, to presidential interference in a red card, there was a barely a day that went by without cause for debate. Dr Bevan Sewell, Associate Professor in American History in the Department of American and Canadian Studies, casts his expert eye over the political events during the tournament.

world-cup-800x

The official World Cup football and trophy on a football pitch.

With the eyes of the world focused on a hard-fought global sporting competition, the host nation’s leader went to considerable lengths to ensure the event would show his nation in the best possible light and provide a political and propaganda boom for his administration. Even the leader’s preference for congratulating competitors from his own nation, while ignoring those representing other countries, was tempered when the organising committee cautioned that this was against the “international spirit” of the event. At times, the leader contemplated putting a finger on the scales to try and influence things his way, but there wasn’t ultimately that much that could be done to bend sport to his will. After all, the black American athlete, Jesse Owens, still won four gold medals and became the undisputed star of the 1936 Olympic Games. 

The Berlin Olympics are not, of course, the 2026 World Cup, and Donald Trump is clearly not comparable to Adolf Hitler. But there are nevertheless important synergies between them that point to the ongoing and problematic relationship between major sporting events, politics, and political interference, and what happens when those involved in hosting and organising decide to try and influence the outcome or when sport collides with geopolitics. 

This World Cup has been shockingly affected by collisions between sport and politics - from domestic debates over immigration affecting the ability of participants and supporters to travel to the matches, to the fact that not all teams have been treated equally, to the outlandishly cosy relationship between the main host nation and the president of FIFA. The intersections between sport and politics in this World Cup have been so widespread that narrowing it down to a few examples has been genuinely difficult.

Even so, there are two areas where the unique nature of this in the 2026 World Cup can be clearly seen. First, the way that sport’s interaction with politics has the capacity to affect the phenomenon known as soft power. Second, the glaring fact that the competition took place while one nation hosting the event - the United States - was at war with one of the competitors - Iran. Each demonstrate the ways that collisions between sport and politics can significantly affect international relations.

Seeing red over Balogun ban

President Trump’s most direct intervention came when he contested the sending off and one-game suspension imposed on the US striker, Folarin Balogun. After opining that the Brazilian referee was “a little bit suspect”, the American president lobbied the head of FIFA, Gianni Infantino, to intervene; when Balogun’s ban was subsequently overturned, Trump declared it “the right decision”. This provoked widespread outcry and allegations of collusion between Trump and Infantino. It even led the former head of FIFA, Sepp Blatter - compelled to stand down in 2015 over allegations of corruption - to worry about the impact on the game’s integrity.

However, Trump has rarely worried about the effect of his actions on America’s reputation and such a clumsy, egregious intervention to exert political influence for sporting advantage is further evidence of Trump’s disdain for US soft power.

Infantino and FIFA’s decision attracted considerable criticism and scrutiny. But it also served to unite much of the rest of the world against the US and ensured that Belgium’s subsequent 4-1 thumping of the USA was greeted with widespread delight among fans outside the United States. In Europe, as the New York Times noted, nations responded with “glee and snark”. Memes and comments popped up online musing on whether Trump would react by imposing tariffs on Belgium or even consider declaring war; various European leaders, looking ahead to a Nato summit, agreed privately not to mention the result for fear that it would prompt Trump to a hostile reaction.

“Sport is war”

Jokes linking a football result to military action point to another uncomfortable clash between sport and geopolitics in this World Cup. One of the more ludicrous aspects of the United States being one of the host nations has been the relationship between Trump and Infantino, particularly Infantino’s creation of a FIFA Peace Prize to bestow upon the US president after he took umbrage at not being awarded the Nobel equivalent. Yet within a few weeks of this fawning award being presented, Trump’s administration joined Israel in declaring war on Iran.

Iran, of course, had qualified for the World Cup and were due to compete in the United States. This raised the prospect of a competing nation having to travel to a country it was at war with - posing difficult questions about the equity and fairness of the competition. Initially, Trump said he “didn’t care” if Iran participated before suggesting they shouldn’t take part for their own “life and safety.” Meanwhile, the Iranian government threated to withdraw following Washington’s killing of their leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Eventually, with a ceasefire just about holding, Iran did participate. Even then, considerable constraints were imposed. The team and their staff were encouraged to base themselves in Tijuana, Mexico, rather than Tucson, Arizona. For their matches in Los Angeles and Seattle, they were told they could only journey to the United States a day before and would have to leave a few hours after the final whistle, although these rules were slightly relaxed for their final game in Seattle.

Iranian players only received their visas ten days before their first game and a number of support and managerial staff were denied entry altogether. When Iran was knocked out of the competition, the administration’s Director of Homeland Security, Markwayne Mullin, announced that he was “just glad they’re done, and they’re not coming back”. In response, the Iranian head coach declared that his side had been the “most oppressed” team “at the tournament”, and their captain suggested that the US had not wanted to them to progress. Whatever you think about the Iranian regime, this collision between sport and war clearly undermined the principle that all teams should be treated equally and have equal chance of success. 

More broadly, the situation raised controversial questions. What happens when nations in a sports competition are at war? Should the organisation running the tournament - in this case FIFA - allow it to go ahead if one of the hosts is at war with other participants? Meanwhile, if Denmark and Venezuela had qualified - the former more likely given their narrow loss on penalties against Czechia in the playoffs - then it would have been possible for a World Cup to take place in which one of the hosts - the USA - was at war with one other nation, had recently overthrown the government of another, and was actively seeking to seize a large amount of territory (Greenland) from the third. And that’s without mentioning the fact that Trump has often wondered aloud about the possibility of Canada, one of their co-hosts, becoming the 51st state.

Politics and sport have long been intertwined and there’s little sign of that changing soon. FIFA’s enthusiasm for having World Cups hosted in the Middle East - Qatar in 2022, Saudia Arabia in 2034 - has led to myriad allegations of profits and sportswashing overriding concerns around human rights and democracy. Within the United States, meanwhile, it is common for domestic political debates to seep into sport, ranging from Trump’s visit to Madison Square Garden during the NBA Finals to debates around how professional sport franchises like the Minnesota Vikings should respond to the ICE immigration raids in Minneapolis that led to the killing of two American citizens.

Nevertheless, the entanglements in this World Cup have been wide-ranging and problematic, raising questions about fairness, integrity, and even existential ones around who the tournament - and ultimately the sport - is for. The actions of Trump and Infantino have exacerbated those issues, but they are also symptomatic of wider geopolitical problems around inequality, representation, environmentalism, access to resources, and war.

Sport in theory distracts us from the difficulties and the travails of life. But in reality, it’s far more accurate to say that it raises an unforgiving mirror up to our world and reflects it in its totality - from the very good to the very bad.

Bevan's new book '', a profile of one of the most complex and underexamined architects of US foreign policy, is out now.