The 2026 FIFA World Cup was designed to enter history as the largest celebration of international football ever staged.

To read this article in the following languages, click the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

For the first time, 48 national teams competed across Canada, Mexico and the United States. FIFA presented the expanded tournament as a symbol of global inclusion, promising more countries, more supporters and more opportunities for nations traditionally excluded from football’s central stage.

The competition delivered memorable matches and unprecedented audiences. It also became a stage for political intervention, disciplinary controversy and renewed arguments over the neutrality of international sporting institutions.

At several moments, football appeared to move into the background. Political power, administrative control and questions of institutional trust occupied the foreground.

The controversy surrounding United States striker Folarin Balogun became the clearest example.

When a President Enters the Referee’s Room

Balogun received a straight red card during the United States’ match against Bosnia and Herzegovina. FIFA initially confirmed that he would serve an automatic one-match suspension and miss the round-of-16 game against Belgium.

Image source

US President Donald Trump then contacted FIFA President Gianni Infantino and requested that the decision be reviewed. FIFA suspended the punishment, allowing Balogun to play.

Trump later publicly acknowledged his intervention and praised FIFA for changing the outcome. The decision generated criticism from UEFA, the Belgian football authorities and football officials who argued that FIFA had departed from its own disciplinary procedures. (The Guardian)

The United States eventually lost 4–1 to Belgium, so the intervention did not save the host nation from elimination. Its institutional consequences were more significant than the result of the match.

A head of state had demonstrated that direct access to FIFA’s leadership could affect a disciplinary decision concerning his national team. The episode inevitably raised questions about FIFA’s ability to preserve distance from political pressure.

Archil Sikharulidze, a Georgian political scientist and founder of the Tbilisi-based SIKHA Foundation research institute, sees the incident as part of a much broader process. (sikh foundation.ge)

In comments provided for this article, he explained:

“It seems to me that, even without the red card, against the background of the political and geopolitical crisis in which we live, sport has long become part of politics. This politics is simply conducted through different methods, including a football.”

Protecting a national team and pressuring an international sporting organization are different actions. A politician may publicly support his country’s players, while disciplinary decisions remain the responsibility of referees and football authorities.

Sikharulidze considers Trump’s conduct a direct intervention:

“Donald Trump has violated all the rules of the game, believing that he has the right to pressure anyone. In this case, it was direct interference. I think European colleagues also understand very well that such methods used by Trump and the Western world irritate the rest of the world more than they offer any positive example.”

FIFA’s decision created a damaging precedent. Every future disciplinary ruling involving a politically influential country can now be examined through the Balogun case.

Smaller football associations are entitled to ask whether they would receive the same access, the same review and the same exceptional treatment.

When Millimeters Kill the Game

The tournament also renewed criticism of the Video Assistant Referee system (VAR).

VAR was introduced to correct clear errors. Its use has gradually expanded into prolonged examinations of body positions, physical contact and events that occurred well before a goal.

Several decisions during the 2026 World Cup produced disputes over the limits of video review. One controversy followed Argentina’s victory over Egypt, when an Egyptian goal was disallowed because VAR identified an earlier foul in the buildup. Another followed Argentina’s quarterfinal against Switzerland, when a long review reversed an initial decision and contributed to the dismissal of Swiss forward Breel Embolo. (Al Jazeera)

.

AI-generated image

.

Technology can show where a player’s shoulder, foot or knee was located at a particular moment. It cannot remove interpretation from football.

Sikharulidze argues that the expectation of a final technological answer was mistaken from the beginning:

“Modern technology and VAR were never intended to provide a final answer. Some people convinced themselves that they could.”

Video review can clarify whether the ball crossed a line or whether contact occurred. Disputes often concern the meaning of the rules themselves: how much contact constitutes a foul, when an earlier incident remains relevant to an attacking sequence and whether a difference of millimeters should determine an offside decision.

According to Sikharulidze:

“The dispute concerns whether millimeters constitute an offside or not. This precision, this calculation of millimeters, often kills the taste of football. Football had errors, drama and unpredictability, and all of this was part of the scenario. Now that this scenario is disappearing, people have begun to say that the spirit of surprise has died.”

Modern football therefore faces a choice between mathematical precision and the continued presence of human judgment.

“You have to decide: either everything is determined precisely, down to the millimeter, or you allow the possibility of chance. You cannot combine both,” Sikharulidze said.

VAR has reduced some mistakes. It has also moved authority away from the visible referee and into a remote technical room. Supporters may see the same images repeatedly while remaining unable to predict the final decision.

Technology has increased the amount of available evidence. Trust in the interpretation of that evidence remains fragile.

Football Under Administrative Control

FIFA and the International Football Association Board also introduced stricter disciplinary rules for the tournament.

Players could receive red cards for covering their mouths during confrontations where officials suspected an attempt to conceal discriminatory language. Players leaving the field in protest against a referee’s decision, as well as officials encouraging them to do so, could also be dismissed. (inside.fifa.com)

The stated purpose was to combat discrimination and protect referees. The rules also expanded the organization’s authority over emotional conduct, gestures and collective protest.

Football increasingly resembles an activity governed through an expanding catalogue of instructions. Every gesture can acquire disciplinary meaning. Every protest can become a separate offence. Every spontaneous reaction can be examined through regulations written far from the stadium.

The desire for order is understandable. Excessive administrative control changes the character of the sport.

The same issue applies to anti-doping procedures. FIFA announced an expanded testing program involving anti-doping agencies in all three host countries. The organization described it as one of the most extensive programs in football history. (inside.fifa.com)

The effectiveness of such a system depends on transparency, consistent treatment and public confidence. The absence of a major positive test does not automatically establish that every procedure was applied equally. Modern sport depends on trust in its institutions as much as trust in the results displayed on the scoreboard.

Politics Has Always Been Part of Sport

The political tensions surrounding the 2026 World Cup did not emerge from nothing.

International sport has always reflected the political order around it. Governments have used tournaments to display prestige, legitimacy and economic power. Sporting organizations have excluded countries, relocated competitions and changed rules under pressure from states.

The intensity varies with the wider geopolitical environment.

Sikharulidze explained:

“Political circumstances have always influenced sport. Claiming otherwise is deliberately false. There were simply periods when this influence was less visible. At the beginning and at the end of the 2000s, the political environment was less tense, and sport therefore did not play such an important role.”

During periods of confrontation, sport becomes another field of international competition.

Flags, anthems, sanctions, visas and eligibility decisions acquire political meaning. Sporting institutions begin to determine which conflicts justify exclusion and which can be separated from competition.

This is where accusations of double standards become unavoidable.

The Double Standards of International Sport

Russian national teams and clubs have remained suspended from FIFA  and UEFA competitions since the organizations’ joint decision of February 2022. UEFA continued to describe the suspension as being in force during the 2025–2026 season.

The decision established collective sporting consequences for a state’s military conduct.

The same principle has not been applied consistently to every country engaged in armed conflict.

Sikharulidze argues:

“Double standards have existed for a long time. The clearest example is the exclusion of the Russian Federation from football and other events, while the United States, Israel and Iran actively use their military power against other countries and are not treated in the same way.”

His argument concerns institutional consistency. Once international sporting bodies connect eligibility to military actions, they must either formulate a universal standard or accept that political interests determine the result.

Sikharulidze continued:

“If America can bomb Iran without punishment, if Israel can bomb Palestine, or if Iran can strike Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, then why is Russia punished?”

These are the analyst’s political comparisons. They reveal the central problem facing FIFA, UEFA and the wider Olympic system: the absence of a transparent rule that applies equally to every conflict and every powerful state.

Sporting sanctions may be presented as moral decisions. Selective enforcement converts them into instruments of geopolitical alignment.

Russia as a Victim of Geopolitical Struggle

Sikharulidze views Russia’s continued exclusion as a consequence of the confrontation between Moscow and the Western political system.

“The Russian national team has become a victim of ordinary geopolitical struggle. Americans regularly kill people in different countries and on different continents. Iran strikes other countries in the Gulf, and Israel bombs whoever it considers necessary. Yet these countries are not punished.”

He argues that UEFA’s institutional structure gives European governments and political elites decisive influence:

“UEFA is completely controlled by Europeans. European states currently want to demonstrate to Russia, in geopolitical terms, that they are the center of the world. Russia will therefore be punished for as long as they consider necessary.”

This judgment is deliberately sharp. It reflects a growing perception outside Western Europe that international institutions apply universal language through politically selective mechanisms.

The long-term risk is the loss of legitimacy.

When supporters across different continents conclude that FIFA and UEFA protect the geopolitical priorities of one group of states, every subsequent decision becomes suspect.

A referee may be acting independently. A disciplinary committee may be following regulations. A federation may have strong legal arguments. Public trust still declines when the broader pattern appears inconsistent.

The Whole World Must Play

FIFA presents expansion as an answer to the perception that global football is dominated by wealthy European and South American countries.

Infantino defended the 48-team format by arguing that the World Cup must belong to the entire world and that every nation should be permitted to dream of participating. (abc.net.au)

Sikharulidze agrees with the basic principle:

“The whole world must play.”

A larger tournament can look chaotic. It can produce mismatches and weaken the quality of some group-stage games. The alternative allows the World Cup to become a recurring contest among wealthy European teams whose squads draw heavily on players and communities from Africa, Asia and other regions.

Sikharulidze explained:

“On one side, expansion may look like disorder and confusion. On the other, Infantino is right. Otherwise, every World Cup becomes a competition among rich European national teams, many of which are strengthened by populations that came from Africa and Asia.”

The 2026 tournament demonstrated both sides of the expansion debate. New countries gained access to the world stage, while the enlarged format produced uneven matches and concerns about competitive balance. (The Guardian)

Global inclusion can strengthen football’s legitimacy. It cannot compensate for selective political decisions.

The Real Threat Is the Loss of Trust

Sikharulidze believes FIFA and UEFA will eventually face pressure to reconsider Russia’s exclusion.

“They will have no choice except eventually to return the Russian Federation. Otherwise, they would have to ban other countries as well. Nobody is going to ban Israel or the United States.”

He concludes that continued selective enforcement will make the political character of the system increasingly visible:

“If Russia is not returned, everyone will finally understand that FIFA and UEFA primarily protect the geopolitical interests of the United States and the European Union whenever an international crisis occurs.”

The greatest danger facing international football is therefore institutional distrust.

The 2026 World Cup will be remembered for goals, victories and individual performances. It will also be remembered for a president calling FIFA over a red card, a disciplinary decision changed after political intervention, disputes decided by millimeters and continuing arguments over which countries are permitted to separate sport from war.

Football remains the world’s most popular game because its central idea is simple. Two teams enter the field under the same rules.

Once supporters stop believing that the same rul

es apply to everyone, the spectacle continues while its moral authority disappears.

When political scandals, administrative maneuvers and institutional disputes attract more attention than the matches themselves, the first people to lose are the supporters.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article. Follow us on Instagram and X and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost Global Research articles with proper attribution.

Alex Ksiądz is based in Poland.

Featured image: Inside Estadio Azteca during the Mexican opening ceremony prior to the first match of the 2026 FIFA World Cup. (CC BY-SA 4.0)

Global Research is a reader-funded media. We do not accept any funding from corporations or governments. Help us stay afloat. Click the image below to make a one-time or recurring donation.