Sport, State, and Syndicates: The Underlying Crises of the 2026 FIFA World Cup

When North America, comprised of the US, Mexico, and Canada, was awarded the rights to host the 2026 World Cup, it was hailed as a historic celebration of unity and the biggest sporting event in the world. Yet, as the event draws near, the idealism that “football unites the world” is being put to the test. Rather than bringing people together, the 2026 World Cup will instead hold a mirror to the world, revealing the complexities of cartel violence in Mexico, geopolitical warfare between the US and Iran, and the underlying contradictions of FIFA’s sports diplomacy. In particular, the Mexican leg of the World Cup has been marred by an explosion in cartel violence. Following the assassination of Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes, also known as “El Mencho,” the kingpin of the Mexican cartel, Mexican authorities have been met with a fierce retaliation by the Jalisco New Generation Cartel. Members of the cartel have established roadblocks, burned automobiles, and engaged in violent clashes in various states. In all, over 70 people have been killed. This comes at a critical time in the World Cup, as Guadalajara, the capital of Jalisco and home to the cartel, will play host to four group-stage games. While FIFA President Gianni Infantino and Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum have expressed “complete confidence” in Mexico’s security and have sought to reassure fans that the situation is improving, the reality of the situation is far more complex. For example, while the removal of kingpins rarely disbands the cartel, it instead sparks a violent power struggle. Moreover, the underlying structures of the cartel, which have been fueled by the trafficking of illegal weapons from the US and money laundering, remain completely intact. While tourists will undoubtedly be safe, as the cartel avoids international attention that comes with harming foreigners, they will still find themselves in close proximity to regions that have been heavily infiltrated by cartel violence.

At the same time, the tournament is facing a diplomatic nightmare over Iran’s participation. In the midst of the conflict, including military strikes by the US and Israel against Iran, and retaliatory attacks by Iran, the status of Iran in the tournament is uncertain. The tension between Iran and the US is compounded by the fact that Iran is scheduled to play its group matches in the country of its political rival, specifically in the US cities of Los Angeles and Seattle. This tension is an unbearable burden for the Iranian team. The Iranian players are caught in the middle of the geopolitical crossfire. If they do not participate, they are accused of politicizing sports. However, if they do participate, they are seen as only doing it for political, not sports, reasons. The Iranian players have used sports as a way to protest their government, such as at the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, where they refused to sing their national anthem, indicating that they play for their people, not their government. The Iranian players have consistently used sports as a way to protest their government, indicating that they are forced to be diplomats and politicians, carrying the baggage of conflicts they had nothing to do with.

These crises, while converging, point to the glaring issues within global sports policy. FIFA, as an organization, has long followed a policy of “political neutrality.” However, experts have gone on to say that this is an extremely idealistic, if not impossible, policy for an organization such as FIFA to follow. It has been accused, for instance, that FIFA, under Infantino, follows a form of Western pragmatism within its policies. For example, within the context of the invasion of Ukraine, sports officials within Russia have been heavily sanctioned and banned within the country. However, within the context of the current Middle Eastern conflict, Infantino met with US President Donald Trump, who assured him that the Iranian sports team is “welcome to compete” while at the same time calling Iran a “very badly defeated country.” It is obvious that sports organizations such as FIFA have adapted policies according to political pressure and pragmatism, as opposed to a strict moral code. However, when the diplomatic world fails, football is unable to escape the geopolitics, only reflecting it instead.