Julian Brito

The 2026 World Cup may ultimately be remembered not for the identity of the winner but for the question it left hanging over the game: how far will the American change in football continue after the tournament in North America? From mandatory water breaks, which effectively split matches into four quarters, to championship rings, halftime shows, and a tightly packaged entertainment product, FIFA has enthusiastically adopted elements of the American sports model.

Some of these innovations are likely to be remembered as new features of an America-hosted tournament, while others may be hard to discard. The mid-half breaks, applied throughout the tournament regardless of conditions, were introduced by FIFA for player welfare reasons in a tournament held in the heat and humidity of a North American summer. Once entrenched, they also created something football has long resisted: two scheduled stoppages midway through each half. For coaches,

These breaks became tactical timeouts. For broadcasters, they offered natural opportunities that could one day carry immense commercial value. But for fans accustomed to football's continuous rhythm, they made matches seem increasingly divided into four quarters. This is where the question of legacy matters.

These breaks are likely to be debated in future World Cups, especially since player safety provides FIFA with a clear justification to keep them, and because the commercial potential of fixed mid-half stoppages will be hard for the sport's decision-makers to ignore. However, any attempt to normalize them globally will face resistance, especially in Europe, where football's relative freedom from stoppages remains a fiercely defended feature by fans. UEFA has stated it will not compromise on its rule that water breaks must not exceed one minute.

Thus, the tournament became a test of how willing FIFA is to reshape football to fit the market in which it is played. The answer: very much. Blurred lines: The winning Spanish team received championship rings, a tradition directly imported from North American sports, while the final featured a massive halftime entertainment show, prompting clear comparisons with the Super Bowl and leading to a 27-minute break, exceeding the sacred 15-minute half-time. Neither of these changes alters the essence of the game.

Yet they helped cement a feeling that FIFA is not just organizing a World Cup in the United States, but increasingly adapting it to American sports culture. There was a paradox: throughout the tournament, American cities saw much of what has long distinguished global football: massive fan support, flags filling city centers, fans chanting for hours before and after matches, and national teams carrying an identity that no commercial franchise model can replicate.

The United States seemed to absorb football culture. At the same time, FIFA seemed determined to absorb American sports entertainment culture and spread it to audiences worldwide. The tournament was inevitably political, as FIFA president Gianni Infantino's close relationship with US President Donald Trump became one of its most prominent off-field features.

Critics say Infantino's closeness to Trump often exceeded the usual diplomatic courtesies between the head of a global sports body and the host country's leader. The controversy over the Folarin Balogun disciplinary case particularly highlighted these concerns, especially after Trump publicly praised FIFA's handling of the case following his intervention

FIFA confirmed that its judicial bodies acted with complete independence, but this incident reinforced for some the impression that the line between football governance and political influence had become disturbingly blurred. The inevitable refereeing debates of the tournament added another dimension of concern. Referees were asked to apply new rules and interpretations of the game, while managing familiar pressures related to consistency, player protection, and the growing influence of technology. The inevitable refereeing debates of the tournament added another dimension of concern.

Referees were asked to apply the laws of the game under new rules and interpretations, while managing the familiar pressures of consistency, player protection, and the growing influence of technology. The result was a World Cup in which the debate often went beyond the right or wrong of a decision, moving toward something more fundamental:

Have the laws of the game become so complex that players, coaches, and fans can no longer understand them in real time? The new interpretations were supposed to bring more clarity and consistency, but the tournament showed time and again how difficult it is to achieve both.

The Video Assistant Referee (VAR) system was central to key decisions, but the technology did little to eliminate controversy. Sometimes, it only shifted the focus of debate away from the referee.

Referees' decisions were influenced by the interpretation of slow-motion replays and technical jargon. This situation was exacerbated by an atmosphere of suspicion around officiating, with conspiracy theories spreading on social media and referees often unable to respond. FIFA's refereeing committee chairman, Pierluigi Collina, denied allegations of bias, insisting that match officials acted with complete independence.

On the field, the expanded 48-team format yielded mixed results. We saw more matches, more nations participating, and greater opportunities for teams previously not included in the biggest sporting event. Expanding the knockout stage added more excitement to the group stage, but the huge number of matches (104) made this edition of the World Cup feel more like a massive condensed sports season over a few weeks, rather than a focused festival.

This scale suited FIFA's commercial ambitions and the geography of the host countries, but whether it improved the sporting product remains debatable. Nevertheless, the tournament delivered what World Cups always do: new champions, disappointments, and poignant moments amid the event's noise. But its lasting legacy may not be a match or a champion, but a precedent it set. That will truly be tested in 2030.

Editor-in-Chief, at Reuters