Removing the US as World Cup host would be eminently sad – and entirely justified | World Cup 2026

A.Displacing the United States as co-host of the 2026 World Cup would hurt almost everyone. Fans wouldn’t be able to see the pinnacle of the sport in their hometown (or anywhere nearby). Cities and businesses large and small would lose the financial benefits they had come to rely on. It would be a logistical and political nightmare on an international scale, the likes of which have never been seen before in sport. That would be extremely sad. And it would be completely justified.

It gives me no pleasure to say that. The United States has wanted to host a men’s World Cup for more than a decade and a half. This desire survived and even grew after the failure in 2010 to outbid Russia and Qatar (in public and behind closed doors) for the 2018 and 2022 World Cups. With the hosting rights for 2026 later secured alongside Canada and Mexico, the American soccer scene prepared to show that the sport is now part of the national fabric, 32 years after first hosting the tournament time in 1994. The growing popularity of soccer in the United States has inspired other American sports to try new formats, encouraged us to engage more fully with the world in a sporting context, and been at the center of conversations about our society and culture. The 2026 World Cup has been seen as the best opportunity for the world to fully gauge not only how much the United States has improved at soccer, but also how much soccer has improved the United States.

I have not been immune to this Pollyannaish vision. Much of my career as an American football roofer is based on the idea that the sport will continue to grow. in the United States. The 2026 World Cup is at the heart of this hope. I can admit that I have a vested interest in the success of this tournament. As a long-time fan, landing the World Cup here was a dream come true. As a professional, I hoped this would create millions of new North American soccer fans who would want to read, watch and listen to journalism about the sport for the rest of their lives.

Maybe I was naive. The tournament may create some of those fans, but at what cost? Exorbitant ticket prices have excluded grassroots football. Onerous demands on cities have siphoned off public money. FIFA has supported an openly corrupt administration at every turn. Today, gratuitous federal violence makes it difficult to justify the World Cup here. Security, justice, freedom and the continued functioning of society are all under threat. Even for many soccer fans in the United States, this game once called “the most important thing of the least important things” now seems simply unimportant.

Federal agents have killed two innocent people in Minneapolis over the past three weeks. Neither threatened the paramilitary forces who shot at them. We know these things because we’ve seen them unfold on video after sickening video, from multiple angles, slowed down, refocused and analyzed. However, the highest government figures want us to believe that Renée Good and Alex Pretti were “domestic terrorists”. That they were in fact the aggressors – in stark contrast to the mountain of evidence available. It would be reasonable to assume that those who so blatantly ignore the truth cannot be trusted to deliver a safe and secure World Cup either.

And then there’s the bigger picture. Thirty-two people have died while in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody in 2025 alone. The Trace, a nonprofit newsroom dedicated to tracking gun violence in the U.S., reports that immigration agents have shot people 19 times since the crackdown began — numbers it assumes are underestimates. These include three murders in 2025, and now at least five with the Minnesota deaths. Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown has resulted in the detention of more people without criminal records than any other category – despite his stated goal of ridding the country of criminals and his supposed successes in doing so. The raids that culminated in all of this largely targeted Democratic-leaning metropolitan areas — which are 10 of the 11 World Cup host cities in the United States (metropolitan Dallas being the only exception). However, “the most important message that football can transmit at the moment is that of peace and unity,” Fifa president Gianni Infantino said last year.

How can football achieve this when its flagship event takes place in a country led by an administration bent on division? A country that captured a foreign leader, perhaps in violation of international law. A country that threatened its so-called allies with military action for control of foreign territory. A country that has fought seemingly endless battles, including with its World Cup co-hosts – the very countries with which it is supposed to stand alongside and welcome soccer fans around the world.

Are these the actions of a safe country, ready to deal with an influx of foreign visitors? Is this the kind of place where you’d expect someone to want to spend several thousand dollars to visit, before they’ve even paid for the games themselves? I can’t believe I’m about to say this, but I sympathize with Sepp Blatter on this.

There has been talk of a boycott in some form; a slight clamor, if so. If this happens in enough countries, Fifa’s hand could be forced. But as justified as it may be, it’s hard to imagine. Hosting World Cups in autocratic or destructive countries is nothing new. A boycott would result in a loss of revenue and a schedule that would be nearly impossible to reconfigure. And there is a feeling at the highest levels of football that whichever government Fifa sides with, the sport itself will emerge unscathed.

“With all due respect to the current world leaders, football is bigger than them,” Concacaf president Victor Montagliani said last year at a conference. “Football will survive their regime, their government and their slogans. »

But in the meantime, football’s main event is at least partly under this administration’s control. Trump himself said last year that if cities are deemed too dangerous or unfit to host, “we’re going to move the event to a place where it will be enjoyed and safe.”

Of course, Trump was considering moving World Cup matches to other U.S. cities. But it would be difficult to argue if the World Cup were moved outside the United States entirely.

• Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.