Caitlin Byrne
For football fans, the FIFA World Cup is so much more than sport. Every four years, it presents a unifying moment – bringing people together across the divides of language, culture and geography in a shared passion for the game. For hosting nations, the tournament is often a soft power supercharger. Watched by billions of people around the globe, it is a prime opportunity to showcase a country's culture and values.
This is all part of what is known as "football diplomacy". Beyond the trophies, governments invest in football to "win" off the pitch, too, fostering better relations, courting investment and earning global prestige. There is no question the US could use a boost like this after months of Trump's polarising leadership.
But there is a crucial difference between soft power and spectacle. Early signs suggest the 2026 World Cup will offer more of the latter for Trump's America – an event that highlights power (not the soft kind), exclusion and vested interests.
The term "soft power" was coined in the 1990s by Harvard political scientist Joseph Nye Jr. It means a country's power is not just derived from military force or economic weight, but also from its ability to influence through attraction. In essence, this is the intangible power nations have to get others to sit at their table and consider, perhaps even support, their view of the world.
With an expanded format of 48 teams playing a record 104 matches in 16 cities across three countries, FIFA President Gianni Infantino has labelled this year's tournament as the "greatest event that mankind has ever seen". Yet, as the tournament begins, it has already been an opportunity lost from a sports diplomacy perspective.
For starters, the event should be a celebration of North American partnership among the three hosts: the US, Mexico and Canada. But tensions have been high since the Trump administration imposed 25% tariffs on goods from both Canada and Mexico. Rather than seek to de-escalate in the spirit of unity, Trump instead needled his counterparts, saying the tariffs would make the World Cup "more exciting", claiming "tension's a good thing".
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney's statement on the opening of the World Cup makes only perfunctory reference to the US. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, meanwhile, did not attend the opening match in Mexico City in solidarity with regular Mexicans who cannot afford the exorbitant ticket prices set by FIFA.
The vision of football uniting the world – FIFA's own stated mantra – has given way to a tournament defined by who gets to participate and who does not. Professor Jules Boykoff, author of Red Card: The 2026 World Cup, Sportswashing and the FIFA Greed Machine, describes it as a "massive paradox". On one hand, it has more teams than ever participating. On the other hand, because of the policies of the Trump administration, it looks more like a World Cup of exclusion.
This goes beyond the soaring ticket prices. Many supporters of nations that qualified from Africa and the Middle East had their visas rejected with no explanation. Visas were rejected for some of the Iranian team's support staff, too. Somali referee Omar Artan was denied entry in Miami, dashing his dream of becoming the first Somali official at a World Cup.
To make matters worse, the concerns over the exclusive nature of the tournament so far have been met with shrugs by Infantino. When asked about Artan's situation, Infantino said it was "unfortunate" he was denied entry, but added, "sometimes it's good to just chill, relax". He also had little to say about US treatment of the Iranian team, which was abruptly moved from its training base in the US across the border to Mexico and saw tickets for its fans revoked by FIFA at the last minute.
Soft power works through genuine openness, two-way dialogue and collaboration – building understanding, trust and respect. The 2026 Men's World Cup appears to be offering something else. The stage is set for self-glorification, managed by a political leader who frames division as entertainment and a governing body too invested in commercial gain to care about social divisions. This is not soft power. But there is bound to be plenty of spectacle.