In international relations, the value of events is not measured solely by their mass appeal, but by their ability to reveal the nature of power balances. From this perspective, the 2026 World Cup went beyond being an exceptional sports tournament due to its expansion to 48 teams or its joint organization by the United States, Canada, and Mexico, transforming into an open political laboratory that demonstrated how soft power intertwines with political influence, and how the traditional boundaries between sports and diplomacy recede!

Before the tournament kicked off, FIFA President Gianni Infantino was keen to repeat his usual message calling for "relaxation," enjoying the tournament, and keeping politics out of football. However, the course of the tournament went in the exact opposite direction; the higher the attempts to neutralize politics, the more the incidents that confirmed its presence at the heart of the event.

Clear Test

It can be said that the 2026 World Cup provided the clearest test of the concept of the independence of international sports institutions. The issue concerning U.S. forward Folarin Balogun went beyond the boundaries of sports discipline to a direct test of FIFA's ability to resist political pressure. U.S. President Donald Trump's announcement that he personally intervened, called the FIFA president, and then spoke publicly about the success of that intervention, moved the issue from the realm of regulations to the realm of influence. The global question became about the sports institution's ability to enforce its rules when they intersect with the interests of the host nation.

This incident carried significance beyond the player himself. FIFA, which had for decades been stringent regarding any governmental interference in the affairs of national associations, found itself facing interference originating from the president of the most powerful country in the world, without it resulting in an institutional crisis matching the scale of its traditional rhetoric regarding the independence of sports—despite opposing statements from continental associations. This paradox resurrected the old debate about the selective application of standards within international organizations.

Host Policies

The tournament also revealed that the host country does not merely host the sporting event, but imposes a part of its political and legal environment upon it. U.S. immigration policies became one of the most prominent files during the competitions, following frequent complaints about delays in the entry of fans, journalists, and sports officials, alongside human rights criticisms regarding inspection, interrogation, and deportation procedures. Here, the debate shifted from the quality of organization to a deeper question concerning the ability of global tournaments to maintain their inclusive character when subjected to a political system with strict security considerations.

This scene was reinforced with the Iranian national team, whose participation became tied to security and political calculations rather than technical aspects. Regional developments imposed themselves on the team's arrangements and movements, and its presence in the tournament became an extension of the prevailing regional balances in the Middle East.

Soft Power

From another angle, the tournament proved that regional conflicts are now capable of redefining the image of national teams. The overt support provided by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the Argentine national team, based on a close alliance with Argentine President Javier Milei, turned the team into a party within a global political debate. Competition moved from the green rectangle to the digital space, where campaigns spread linking the team's performance to the Argentine government's positions on the war in Gaza and relations with Israel. Thus, in the eyes of wide segments of public opinion, the team's identity became linked to its government's foreign policy choices rather than its athletic achievements.

This development reflects an important shift in the concept of soft power. States no longer employ major tournaments merely to improve their image; rather, their political positions are now capable of reshaping the image of their teams as well. Consequently, football has become one of the arenas for managing international reputation, subject to the same rules that govern the struggle for political influence.

In the same context, old accusations regarding favoritism toward Argentina and Lionel Messi resurfaced on a broader scale. The controversy over refereeing decisions, match schedules, and the management mechanism of the video assistant referee (VAR) did not remain within the sporting framework, but turned into a political narrative speaking of centers of influence within FIFA and of a tournament subject to calculations beyond competitive fairness. Regardless of the validity of these accusations, their widespread circulation reveals a crisis of trust in the organizing institutions rather than the details of the refereeing incidents themselves.

Regional Conflicts

The Argentina-England match also revived the dossier of the Falkland/Malvinas Islands, when post-match celebrations turned into a platform to reproduce Argentine sovereignty discourse. Within hours, a dispute that occurred in 1982 returned to the forefront of global discussion—a development confirming that sports tournaments have become a space for reviving national memory, and that sports symbols possess an exceptional ability to summon files that were supposed to remain in the archives of history.

The broader picture reveals that the 2026 World Cup went beyond being a global sporting event to become a direct reflection of the nature of the current international system. The world is living through a phase where multilateral institutions are receding in the face of rising national considerations, the influence of populism is expanding, and competition to shape the media narrative is increasing. All of these trends were reflected within the tournament in a way that is difficult to ignore.

Perhaps the most impactful development is the role played by social media platforms. In previous tournaments, governments and major media institutions monopolized narrative production. In the 2026 edition, millions of accounts began participating in shaping narratives, interpreting events, and turning any refereeing decision or political statement into an international crisis within minutes. Thus, image management has become part of managing the tournament itself.

Football and Politics

Historically, football reflected the political mood of nations. In the 2026 World Cup, it has become one of the tools for shaping that mood. Therefore, the tournament can be viewed as an indicator of deeper transformations within the international system, where sports intertwine with security, diplomacy with media, and national identity with soft power, in a single space where governments, public opinion, and international institutions compete to produce the most influential narrative.

From this perspective, it is difficult to consider what was witnessed in the 2026 World Cup as a series of isolated events. The general picture points to the transition of major sports tournaments into a new phase, where the sports arena becomes an extension of the global political sphere, and competition for the cup transforms into a parallel competition for influence, legitimacy, and the ability to shape the world's perception.

1 U.S. President Donald Trump and the FIFA President during the closing of the 2026 World Cup (AFP)

2 Exaggerated Israeli sympathy with Argentina turned fans against the "Tango" (Agencies)

3 The Iranian team complained of discrimination and mistreatment in the tournament based on political factors (Agencies)

4 Trump's intervention to rescind Folarin Balogun's red card makes it the most controversial issue (Agencies)

5 The cancellation of Somali referee Omar Artan's visa is among the issues that inaugurated the World Cup (Agencies)