PHOTO: Fauzan Saari on Unsplash
Football fanaticism has come to occupy the place formerly reserved for religious fervour, patriotic ardour and political passion. As often occurs with religion, patriotism and politics, football can bring tensions to a boil, and many horrors are committed in its name.
Eduardo Galeano
Every four years, billions turn their attention to the men’s FIFA World Cup — the pinnacle of world football — their hearts follow, with many devoting their prayers to their nation’s football team.
For many, the tournament serves as an entertaining spectacle that distracts from the rhythms of everyday life; for others, their preferred team winning means something far more important than a simple game of football. In the midst of discussions about the GOATs of the game, national rivalries and predictions, commentators often leave the inherently political nature of the game undiscussed.
While some lament the recent “politicization” of the World Cup, the intertwining of football and political power has existed since the beginning of the sport.
Two competing narratives exist alongside one another: the World Cup as a space for unity, in which multiculturalism and cosmopolitanism are celebrated, and the World Cup as a spectacle for nations to promote nationalism and sportswash, defined by the UNSW Human Rights Institute as “us[ing] … sport to redirect public attention away from unethical conduct”.
From the inception of the Association Football rules in 1863 to the 2026 World Cup, the World Cup and football more broadly are inherently interlinked with the histories of empire, nationalism and conflict.
The historic intersection of the “beautiful game” and political influence
The Uruguayan model
By 1900, Uruguay was integrated into Britain’s ‘informal empire’, as its export industry focused on beef exports to Britain and its colonies. This resulted in a significant British presence in Uruguay, both in terms of labour and of a limited naval presence.
In the early 20th century, Uruguay underwent a political transformation from an agrarian, caudillo-led political structure to a parliamentary democracy. The British presence seeded a local football culture. Initially, locals were introduced to the game by watching the British expats play football on the shores of Montevideo.
Over the course of the early 20th century, Uruguay developed its own style as the game began to be played by Uruguayans. As the economy continued to grow, state investment into sport increased, leading Uruguay to global success at the first Olympic Games. This cemented the nation’s global reputation as a football powerhouse and gave the nation its first international superstar, José Andrade.
Uruguay’s early involvement in international football is no coincidence. It was a deliberate choice of Enrique Buero, Uruguay’s Foreign Minister at the time, who believed that Uruguay’s entry into international football would demonstrate that the South American nation could be an exporter of culture. This improved Uruguay’s image among European and US elites, who viewed Latin America as an exploitable semiperiphery for resources.
Already a football powerhouse, Uruguay was the natural choice to host the inaugural edition of the tournament in 1930.
Glitz on the pitch, grime in the background
Since the early days of international football, authoritarian regimes have used global attention to deflect from anti-regime sentiment, both domestically and internationally.
In June 1930, the “playboy prince” Carol of Romania returned from exile and seized the throne , leading to his coronation as Carol II. A football fanatic with a Mussolini obsession, Carol set his sights on sending a team to Montevideo, Uruguay to compete in the inaugural World Cup. Rather than modern sportswashing, Carol practised an early form of sports diplomacy, leveraging the tournament for soft power purposes.
PHOTO: 1934 FIFA World Cup poster, Gino Boccasile on Wikimedia Commons
To demonstrate the success of fascism, Italy hosted the second iteration of the World Cup in 1934. This was not without controversy; the tournament was criticised for corruption. Allegations of match-fixing and bribing referees were common. Italy won the World Cup, beating Czechoslovakia by 2–1 in a final described by historian Simon Martin as a “fascist rally rather than a World Cup final”.
Italy also leveraged its Latin American diaspora to competitive advantage. Manager of Italy’s national football team Vittorio Pozzo, said that “if [the players] can die for Italy, they can play [for Italy]”, demonstrating his choice to include Argentinian players on his team. This mirrors nations such as Iraq and its recruiting policies, where diaspora Iraqis are used to bolster its image.
Argentina’s 1970s sportswashing
In the midst of a brutal dictatorship, while 30,000 disappeared across the country, Argentina hosted the 1978 World Cup. Billions of people globally gained the impression that there was nothing to fault in Argentina. Swedish manager Georg Ericson remarked “I haven’t seen anything that suggests that this isn’t a great country,” a remark that uncloaked how completely the junta had controlled the tournament’s image for foreign eyes.
Moreover, the 1978 tournament faced allegations similar to those of the 1934 World Cup, specifically match-fixing. In Argentina’s 6-0 victory over Peru, it is alleged that the host manipulated the outcome of the match. In a precarious position, Argentina required a 4–0 victory to advance further in the tournament. To win, dictator Jorge Videla and Henry Kissinger paid a visit to the Peruvian team lockers, where they read a statement aloud regarding the historical friendship between Argentina and Peru. It is generally believed that this was an implicit threat intended to coerce Peru into forfeiting the match, allowing Argentina to advance.
Russia and Qatar: Political controversy at the fore
The politics of the World Cup came into focus recently with the 2018 and 2022 editions in Russia and Qatar respectively, underlining FIFA’s responses to allegations of human rights abuses in host nations.
Russia
In 2014, FIFA reaffirmed Russia’s hosting of the 2018 tournament in the face of President Vladimir Putin’s annexation of Crimea from Ukraine, despite calls from both American and British politicians to strip Russia of the event.
PHOTO: Russian President Vladimir Putin (right) handing over the hosting rights to Qatar Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani (left), accompanied by FIFA President Gianni Infantino, Russian Presidential Press and Information Office on Wikimedia Commons
The fact that FIFA has since prevented Russia from participating in the 2022 and 2026 World Cups, after its 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine, only raises further questions around what factors shape FIFA’s decisions. Whether FIFA’s decision to take such actions is guided by a genuine moral imperative or by political or commercial pressures is a question they must answer.
Furthermore, the 2018 tournament was actively held alongside major human rights violations such as the use of North Korean forced labour to build stadiums and Russia’s repressive anti-LGBT+ policies. In response to these concerns, FIFA created a Human Rights Policy in 2017. However, the reality in Russia suggests that such policies were merely symbolic and did not practically address human rights abuses.
A significant human rights concern in the leadup to 2018 was Russia’s treatment of dissenting individuals, especially in the wake of former Russian intelligence officer Sergei Skripal being poisoned in the UK, with Russia widely accused of being behind the attack. The incident strained relations between Russia and the UK, culminating in British politicians and the Royal Family choosing not to attend the World Cup, showcasing how sport is ultimately shaped by wider geopolitics. Ultimately, while France may have won the tournament on the pitch, off it, the 2018 World Cup was a success for Russia in their ability to sportswash their human rights abuses.
Qatar
Similarly, amid the spectacle of what was widely regarded by commentators as the greatest ever World Cup Final where Lionel Messi’s Argentina saluted, concerns of sportswashing also clouded Qatar 2022.
There was significant controversy around infrastructure development for the event given the lack of labour protections for migrant workers in Qatar under the Kafala system, a widespread practice among the Gulf states. The Kafala system binds migrant workers to their employers, creating exploitative conditions for vulnerable foreign labourers. While Qatar has employed this system since the 20th century, the World Cup exposed globally the harsh conditions that migrant workers routinely face.
Over 6000 workers were estimated to have died since Qatar was awarded the World Cup in 2010, with many of these deaths attributed to World Cup infrastructure projects, underlining the human cost of one of the world’s most glamorous events. Critics argue that FIFA did not adequately address these concerns by failing to enforce and ensure proper labour protections. Indeed, due to the intensified global scrutiny on the Kafala system, Qatar did introduce some reforms that gave workers greater protections. Nonetheless, Human Rights Watch have said these reforms are largely ineffective, with migrant workers still facing significant challenges.
PHOTO: Hossein Zohrevand on Wikimedia Commons
Another major human rights concern of Qatar 2022 was the treatment of LGBTQIA+ people. While FIFA’s own human rights policy may explicitly state intolerance of any gender or sexuality-based discrimination, the organisation actively supported the tournament being hosted by a country which criminalises and oppresses same-sex relations. During the tournament, FIFA even threatened team captains with yellow cards if they wore the ‘OneLove’ armband to protest Qatar’s anti-LGBT+ laws — a move which garnered widespread criticism for showing FIFA’s inconsistency between their stated commitments and actions.
Moreover, FIFA President Gianni Infantino brushed off these criticisms, instead asking everyone to just “enjoy the tournament”, underlining FIFA’s priority in protecting their showpiece event over their human rights commitments.
The question then arises: why did FIFA award the World Cup to countries which attracted such high-level scrutiny? The answer lies partly with FIFA itself, a global body with a well-publicised history of corruption. After much speculation, the US Department of Justice alleged in 2022 that representatives involved in the Russia and Qatar bids bribed FIFA officials to secure hosting rights, underlining how FIFA’s self-interest undermines their ability to meaningfully promote peace and security. FIFA appointed independent investigator Michael Garcia to look into the bidding processes, however the investigation only provided limited findings due in part to FIFA intervention.
By being responsible for one of the world’s largest cultural events, the cumulative evidence of FIFA’s governance failures cannot be ignored. The last two editions have reiterated the tension between the supposed glamour of global sport and the political and human rights realities that accompany it.
FIFA and Trump: Peacemakers?
In a tournament supposed to be defined by a bold new 48-team format, FIFA has continued to allow sportswashing and political theatre to overshadow the spotlight of the beautiful game.
PHOTO: US President Donald Trump (left) standing next to the maiden FIFA Peace Prize (centre) he was awarded to by FIFA President Gianni Infantino (right) on the 5th of December, 2025, The White House on Wikimedia Commons
On the eve of 2026, FIFA, an organisation that insists it is apolitical as per its own statutes, awarded its inaugural FIFA Peace Prize to US President Donald Trump. The justification? Citing Trump’s involvement in facilitating a peace treaty between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda, as well as promoting a ceasefire in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Yet, while FIFA may have intended for this move to unite the footballing world, it sowed disbelief worldwide.
On the 29th of April 2026, Socceroos and FC St. Pauli midfielder Jackson Irvine said the decision to award the Peace Prize to Trump was “making a mockery of the global game”, betraying football’s role as a global force for good. Likewise, the President of the Norwegian Football Association, Lise Klaveness, went further, suggesting that the prize be scrapped.
The controversy arrived only two months after Infantino made an appearance in Egypt for the Gaza Peace Summit, alongside Trump and other world leaders. Infantino claimed Trump had personally invited him to the summit, and that FIFA is ready to assist in terms of paving the way for peace.
Yet, just weeks prior Infantino himself insisted FIFA cannot solve geopolitical issues. This came after Amnesty International urged FIFA to suspend the Israeli Football Association for allowing clubs based in illegal settlements in Palestine to play in the Israeli domestic league.
In a desperate attempt to facilitate ‘unity’ and showcase FIFA’s ‘peace making’ capabilities, Infantino attempted to orchestrate an on-stage handshake between Israeli and Palestinian delegates at the FIFA Congress on 1 May 2026. However, Jibril Rajoub, the Palestinian representative, protested and refused to shake hands with his Israeli counterpart, dealing a major blow to Infantino as the Congress’ audience watched on.
FIFA’s inconsistent application of sanctions has generated significant international debate. Unlike Russia, Israel remained eligible to qualify for the tournament, despite the ongoing conflict in Gaza and amid activist backlash.
Historical precedent shows that FIFA has and is able to act when it so chooses. During the Apartheid regime in South Africa, the global body suspended and later expelled the South African Football Association; restoring their membership after Apartheid’s collapse.
The irony of awarding Trump the Peace Prize was lost on no one when the US, alongside Israel, launched military action against Iran just two months after the Prize was awarded.
Trump has also repeatedly threatened to annex Greenland, prompting calls from some in European states to boycott the 2026 tournament. A prize aimed at symbolising harmony and unity has now become nothing more than a joke.
Banned from America, banned from football
FIFA’s close relationship with Trump not only puts their reputation at stake but rather, disenfranchises players and fans. Following the outbreak of war with Iran, Infantino claimed Trump had assured him the Iranian team would be able to compete in the tournament.
However, Trump later contradicted this, saying while participation was possible, players’ safety could not be guaranteed. US special envoy Paolo Zampolli even suggested Italy, a team that failed to qualify, replace Iran instead. Reports emerged that the Iranian Football Association requested FIFA to move their matches from the United States to Mexico; a request that was subsequently denied.
Haiti’s presence at the World Cup is also in doubt. Having qualified for the first time since 1974 — a moment of pure jubilation for the country — the US banned Haitian citizens from entering the country in June 2025.
The broader controversies regarding immigration enforcement and ICE have been exemplified. Human rights groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union urged FIFA to pressure American authorities to stop the new administration’s “authoritarian and violent” crackdown on immigration.
All fans are equal, but some fans are more equal than others
PHOTO: Brazilian supporters cheer as they watch their 2010 FIFA World Cup match against Korea DPR, Renato Araujo/ABr on Wikimedia Commons
On the ground, ordinary football fans have been sidelined from the tournament through price-gouging. Ticket prices have sky-rocketed, turning the people’s tournament into a luxury commodity.
The introduction of dynamic pricing has seen ticket prices fluctuate, resulting in draconian ticket prices. World Cup final tickets have reached an extraordinary US$16,000 (AU$22,000), compared to the 2022 and 2018 finals, which did not exceed US$1,600 (AU$2,200) for its highest tier ticket.
Some resale tickets are being sold for an astonishing US$2 million (AU$2.8 million). A luxury suite ticket for a match between #61 ranked Saudi Arabia and #69 Cabo Verde starts at an unfathomable US$41,000 (AU$57,000).
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani has at least attempted to soften the blow of ticket costs, reassuring New York and New Jersey residents that World Cup Fan Zones would be free. No other city has so far provided similar initiatives.
The undeniable reality of the “beautiful game”
From the 1800s to today, politics has coexisted alongside the colour of “the beautiful game”. As one of the most celebrated international cultural events, the FIFA World Cup has gone beyond a sporting tournament to a platform regularly playing host to power politics, governance challenges and political struggles. This year’s edition being held at a time of political and social upheaval worldwide means the world’s attention upon the World Cup will go far beyond the spectacle on the field itself.
Alessandro Salamone
Alessandro Salamone is a second year Law/Arts student who holds a strong interest in postcolonial history, global justice, and the role of identity and culture in international relations. He is bilingual in English and Italian, and enjoys reading widely to discover new perspectives on politics, history and IR. He is deeply interested in the role of culture, identity and religion in influencing power. Outside of academics, he enjoys running, reading, listening to music and cooking.
Rahul Deepak Kumar
Rahul is a 3rd year Arts/Global Studies Student, specialising in journalism and international relations. He is very interested in learning about global trends that occur on a grassroots level and how this impacts wider political structures. In particular, he is interested in post-colonial and post-modernist approaches as an alternative method of understanding, analysing and critiquing international relations. Rahul is also the 2026 Pivot Editor-in-Chief and thoroughly enjoys reading and editing analyses of global affairs and ensuring that everyone is able to actively engage in discourse about international politics and foreign affairs.
