World Cup in football even before the start, it provokes harsh criticism and raises questions about Trump, FIFA and the consequences for the climate, he reminds Mother said.
1. Shouldn't FIFA be politically neutral?
In the months leading up to the 2026 men's World Cup, FIFA, led by president Gianni Infantino, has often been criticized for showing unusual closeness to Donald Trump.
Among other things, during the draw for the World Cup, he presented him with the "FIFA Peace Prize". This specially designed award was practically a substitute for denying Trump the Nobel Peace Prize, for which he thought he was the best candidate. Infatino sat on stage with a red MAGA cap on his head during the introduction of Trump's Peace Council.
According to its own statute, FIFA is supposed to be politically neutral. However, Infantino interprets his role more and more politically, creating the impression that he is deliberately linking international sports politics with state interests.
Additional tensions arise due to the fact that the US is at war with Iran. So far, it has never happened that the host of the World Cup is in a military conflict with one of the participants of the tournament.
2. Shouldn't all fans have the opportunity to watch their team?
The rules for entering the US have also drawn sharp criticism: due to stricter visa rules, fans from several participating countries are effectively excluded. Iran and Haiti are subject to a complete entry ban for spectators - only teams and coaching staffs can enter the country.
Fans from Senegal and Ivory Coast also have almost no chance, as tourist visas for them are mostly suspended. One reason is that in the past, many travelers from these countries overstayed in the US.
At one point, the American government introduced a deposit of as much as $15.000 for visitors from certain countries, which would be returned to them only after leaving the country. This measure was, admittedly, lifted for many ticket holders shortly before the start of the tournament, but it vividly illustrates the extent to which security and migrant politics are shaping this tournament.
Aggressive US immigration policies and possible actions by the Immigration Service (ICE) add to the uncertainty. Before the tournament, the US government did not want to rule out the possibility of controls or arrests even around the stadiums themselves. Human rights organizations have warned of a "deterrence effect" as a result - especially for fans from migrant communities, some of whom have already said they prefer to forgo a trip to the championship out of fear.
3. Can one ticket really cost $690.000?
Ticket sales for the 2026 World Cup are considered extremely commercialized. The official prices at the very beginning of the sale were already very high: several thousand dollars were requested for many seats, while the premium tickets for the finals originally cost about 11.000 dollars.
However, FIFA has for the first time introduced so-called "Dynamic Pricing", which means that prices change rapidly depending on demand - so even within the same sales phase, fans pay different amounts for identical seats.
All this is followed by reports that customers chose a certain category or position in the stadium, and ended up getting seats in worse sectors. Fan organizations and consumer protection associations are therefore accusing FIFA of inflated prices, lack of transparency and unfair sales, and have even filed a complaint with the European Union. The attorneys general of New Jersey and New York have announced an investigation into the FIFA ticketing system.
Just a few weeks before the start of the tournament, a small number of games were completely sold out. The cheapest ticket for the final on the FIFA website was 8.625 dollars on May 28. People in wheelchairs had to shell out at least $10.350 for an accessible seat. The last available seat in the front row, right next to the corner flag, was offered for an incredible $690.000.
In addition to official sales, FIFA also runs its own ticket resale platform, where it earns a percentage of each transaction - a total of 30 percent. Critics point out that financial interests are clearly at the fore and that many fans are practically unable to attend due to the high prices.
4. Shouldn't only the best teams compete in the World Cup?
A total of 48 teams will participate in the 2026 World Cup for the first time, instead of the previous 32 teams. Because of this, the number of matches increases from 64 to 104. Experts and many fans criticize this expansion, believing that it could lower the quality of sports because more weaker teams participate.
At the same time, the passage to the knockout phase was made easier, because not only the two first-placed teams from a total of twelve groups go on, but also the eight best third-placed teams.
Since in the future, instead of 16, as many as 32 teams will go through the group stage, the sixteenth round of the finals will be played for the first time. This increases the burden on the players as well as the costs for the fans – while for FIFA this expansion opens up new opportunities for even more revenue.
Some observers see this reform as a politically motivated decision: the smaller confederations, whose votes carry a lot of weight in the FIFA structure, benefit from the additional seats. This raises doubts about whether sporting criteria were at the fore, or whether FIFA president Infantino pushed through the expansion of the championship primarily to secure his power base within the world federation.
5. Is it really sustainable and environmentally friendly?
Although FIFA is declaratively committed to sustainability and environmental protection, the 2026 World Cup is under fire for its environmental impact. Studies estimate that the tournament could produce more than nine million tons of CO₂, primarily due to the vast distances between the host cities and the large number of flights.
This corresponds to the total annual CO₂ emissions produced by the Mediterranean island of Cyprus with around 1,25 million inhabitants and over four million tourists per year. Environmental protection organizations are therefore talking about the potentially "most climate-damaging" World Cup in history.
The problem continues on the field itself: many stadiums are located outside cities and are poorly connected to public transport. Where connections exist, prices have skyrocketed: a short train ride to New York's MetLife Stadium costs up to $150 (instead of the usual $13).
After fierce protests from fans, the organizers relented and set a flat rate of $98 for transportation. The shuttle bus now costs $20 instead of the original $80.
Those arriving by car also pay more at many locations: parking costs anywhere from $75 to $300 per game. Fortunately, most stadiums with expensive parking have a more affordable public alternative. The only exception is Boston.
Critics see a contradictory picture in the lack of offers and these prices: despite promises to protect the climate, the very structure of the tournament forces many fans to make trips that harm the environment - and at the same time make them even more expensive.
Real journalism costs money, and we will not be bought by tycoons and corporations. Support us with a one-time or monthly donation. The time for it is now!
