as the United States prepares to co-host the 2026 FIFA World Cup, scrutiny is mounting over whether the nation’s current political climate aligns with the values typically associated with the world’s most prominent sporting event. Recent analysis suggests a growing gap between the U.S.’s stated democratic ideals and its practices regarding human rights, international law, and political freedoms. This assessment raises critical questions about the legitimacy of awarding major international events to nations facing accusations of authoritarian tendencies and challenges FIFA’s commitment to upholding ethical standards.
The decision of where to host the FIFA World Cup is rarely a neutral one. Despite sports institutions often attempting to present these events as separate from politics, maintaining what they claim is the autonomy of sport, the reality is that organizing a World Cup offers a significant symbolic endorsement of the host nation. It implicitly recognizes the country as a respectable member of the international community, deserving of visibility, prestige, and recognition. This argument has fueled criticism of past World Cup selections, including Russia and Qatar, as well as the awarding of the 2034 tournament to Saudi Arabia. With the United States now set to co-host the 2026 tournament, questions are being raised about whether the country currently meets the political, legal, and moral standards required to host a global sporting event of this magnitude.
On paper, the United States continues to function as a constitutional democracy, holding regular elections, maintaining a separation of powers, and recognizing fundamental rights within its Constitution. However, some observers argue the current U.S. administration is exhibiting authoritarian tendencies – with some even labeling it as fascist – which calls into question the authenticity of those democratic features and the legitimacy of its governing institutions. The gap between stated ideals and actual practice has widened considerably, leading to concerns that the nation is operating in a manner inconsistent with the values international sport claims to uphold.
The United States has historically acted as a military power, and that continues today. It’s not simply a history of intervention, but a repeated willingness to use force against other nations without clear legal justification under international law. Adding to these concerns is the practice of extraterritorial detentions and alleged kidnappings of foreign political leaders or individuals deemed “enemies,” conducted outside of any ordinary judicial process. These actions not only violate the sovereignty of other states but also undermine the basic principles of the rule of law and international law, principles that former President Trump and his administration appeared to disregard, replacing legal frameworks with a reliance on force.
While concerns about human rights regarding certain minorities in the U.S. have long existed, current violations are particularly alarming. The treatment of migrants is a prime example. Mass detention policies, family separations, substandard detention center conditions, and swift deportations are incompatible with international human rights standards. This is compounded by the systemic discrimination that continues to affect other minority groups, both in access to basic rights and protection from institutional violence. Instances of police violence, systemic racism, and extreme inequality aren’t isolated incidents, but symptoms of a political system that tolerates – and sometimes perpetuates – serious injustices.
Furthermore, fundamental rights are increasingly being restricted. In recent years, there has been a growing trend of censorship of books in public libraries and schools, particularly those addressing issues of racism, gender, sexual diversity, or historical memory. When a state dictates which ideas can be circulated and which must be silenced, it moves dangerously close to the practices of authoritarian and fascist regimes.
Some proponents of hosting major sporting events in countries with democratic deficits argue that even problematic selections can lead to positive change. They suggest that exposing a population to different values, cultures, and ways of life can foster a gradual opening of society and ultimately lead to improvements in political and social practices.
However, this justification doesn’t apply to the United States. Unlike other contexts, this isn’t a closed society that could benefit from greater exposure to external democratic values. The U.S. doesn’t need to “learn” from the outside in terms of culture or sport, and the World Cup won’t serve as a transformative window for its citizens. Instead, the event risks functioning as a mechanism for self-celebration and legitimizing a deeply problematic political model, without generating any meaningful internal self-criticism. In this sense, hosting the World Cup isn’t an opportunity for change, but a tool for symbolic consolidation of the status quo, furthering the agenda of the current administration.
Allowing the United States to host the World Cup sends a deeply contradictory message. If sport aspires to represent values like dignity, equality, and respect, it’s difficult to justify aligning those ideals with a state whose political practices increasingly contradict them. Denying the U.S. the right to host a World Cup isn’t an act of hostility, but one of dignity and consistency with the values upon which the autonomy of sport is based. A decision aligned with the legitimacy that sport’s governance seeks, and the ethical and political responsibility that comes with it. Accusations of sportswashing must be consistent and not directed in only one direction.
The United States will undoubtedly host the 2026 World Cup. But it will do so while undermining the moral and political legitimacy of FIFA. The complicity of FIFA, and particularly its president Gianni Infantino, with the current U.S. administration is troubling. FIFA has offered moral and symbolic cover to U.S. political power, contributing to an image of international normalcy that is deeply questionable. This is a relationship of convenience where both sides benefit: the host nation gains legitimacy and global prestige, while the sporting institution secures resources, influence, and substantial economic benefits. The cost of this alliance is borne by football itself, as its ethical credibility and moral standing are severely eroded. This isn’t a new phenomenon; the instrumentalization of international sport during the 1936 Berlin Olympics under Hitler had lasting consequences for its symbolic legitimacy. Ignoring these lessons isn’t just a failure of historical memory, but a deliberate refusal to demand consistency between the values sport proclaims and the political realities it chooses to support.
José Luis Pérez Triviño and Alberto Carrio Sampedro are Professors of Philosophy of Law at Pompeu Fabra University and members of Master EU Sport, Ethics and Integrity.
