A Bigger World Cup Brings Bigger Questions

“Simply the greatest event that humanity, that mankind, has ever seen.”

That was Gianni Infantino’s grand description of the 2026 World Cup, a tournament spread across the United States, Mexico and Canada, expanded to 48 teams and 104 matches, and designed to push football deeper into North America’s sporting mainstream.

On the pitch, it promises scale, colour and drama. The opening game between Mexico and South Africa at the Estadio Azteca in Mexico City carries real historical weight, with the famous venue set to become the first stadium to stage the start of three different World Cups.

But away from the football, this tournament is already carrying a heavy burden.

It may be the biggest World Cup ever. It may also be the most expensive, the most politicised, the most commercially aggressive and, in climate terms, potentially the most damaging. For every promise of unity and celebration, there is a growing question about who this World Cup is really serving.

The Opening Night Comes With Tension

Mexico City should offer one of the great World Cup backdrops. The Estadio Azteca has already given the game some of its most famous moments, and the return of football’s biggest tournament to that stage should be a celebration.

Yet even here, the wider concerns are impossible to ignore.

Ticket prices have caused anger among supporters, while security has become a major issue in a country dealing with cartel violence. In the capital, World Cup player statues have reportedly been toppled by protesters, with teachers demanding higher wages threatening to disrupt fixtures if their concerns are not addressed.

The tournament’s Mexican setting also highlights one of its most sensitive political stories. Iran have moved their base from Arizona to Mexico following the military conflict involving the United States, Israel and Iran. Although a ceasefire was announced in April, tensions have continued to shadow the team’s participation.

Iran are still expected to play in a fourth consecutive World Cup, but the build-up has been loaded with visa concerns, political accusations and uncertainty over what supporters will be allowed to display inside stadiums.

For a tournament that wants to present itself as a global celebration, the first week may immediately show how difficult that promise has become.

Ticket Prices Have Changed The Mood

When the 2026 World Cup was awarded to North America, it looked like a safer, cleaner choice after the controversies surrounding previous tournaments. The infrastructure was already in place, the commercial opportunity was enormous, and football had grown significantly in the United States since the 1994 World Cup.

Financially, it is expected to be extraordinary for Fifa. The expanded format, major broadcast deals, huge sponsorship revenues and the American sports market mean this could become the most lucrative sporting event ever staged.

But that commercial ambition has created a serious backlash.

Back in the bidding process, the maximum price for a final ticket was presented at around $1,550. When tickets later went on sale to official supporters’ club members, the most expensive final tickets were reportedly listed at $8,680. That gap has fuelled anger among fan groups, who believe loyal supporters are being priced out of the tournament.

The use of dynamic pricing at a World Cup has only deepened the frustration. Prices shifting according to demand may be familiar in American entertainment and sports, but for many travelling football fans, it feels like another step away from the culture of the game.

There has also been controversy around resale fees, transport costs and access. Even train fares to the MetLife Stadium in New Jersey, where the final will be played, became part of the wider argument about whether ordinary fans are being treated fairly.

This World Cup may sell millions of tickets, but the emotional connection between supporters and the tournament is clearly under strain.

Fans Face A Tournament Shaped By Politics

The political backdrop is impossible to separate from the football.

During Donald Trump’s first term, Gianni Infantino suggested that travel bans affecting qualified teams, supporters and officials could be incompatible with World Cup hosting. Now, with Trump back in office, several participating nations face full or partial travel restrictions, tighter checks or high visa rejection rates.

Supporters from countries including Iran, Haiti, Senegal and Ivory Coast have all been affected by wider US immigration policy. There have also been concerns around deposits for visa applicants from countries such as Algeria, Senegal, Ivory Coast, Cape Verde and Tunisia.

The issue is not limited to fans. Omar Artan, who had been set to become the first Somali referee at a World Cup finals, was removed from the list of officials after being denied entry to the United States. Somalia is among the countries affected by US travel restrictions.

Former Australia captain Craig Foster, now a rights campaigner, described the situation as a direct challenge to football’s claim that sport can stand apart from politics. His warning was stark: “This is a tournament where players, fans, and officials are not walking in free of risk, if they can get in at all.”

That is the reality facing 2026. The football may be global, but access to it may not be.

Security Will Be Under Unprecedented Pressure

With 104 matches across three countries, the security operation will be vast.

The role of US agencies, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement, has already drawn criticism from human rights groups, especially given the wider immigration crackdown in the United States. The White House World Cup Task Force has insisted the tournament will be safe and welcoming, but the scale of the challenge is obvious.

Andrew Giuliani, who leads the task force, has described the pressure on local law enforcement as unprecedented. He said planners had been dealing with a difficult situation during a partial shutdown affecting the Department of Homeland Security, adding that officials were still trying to fill gaps in preparation.

That would be a major issue even without the extra pressures surrounding the tournament. But this World Cup also arrives amid tensions between the co-hosts, wider diplomatic disputes, the 250th anniversary of American independence and the expectation that Donald Trump will be highly visible throughout the event.

The result is a World Cup that feels less like a neutral sporting festival and more like a major geopolitical stage.

Heat, Storms And Sustainability Questions Loom

The climate concerns around the 2026 World Cup may become one of its defining issues.

The use of existing stadiums helps reduce the need for new construction, but the expanded tournament creates a huge travel footprint. With matches spread across such a vast area, aviation will account for the overwhelming majority of emissions. Environmental campaigners have warned that this could become the most climate-damaging World Cup in history.

There are also immediate health concerns. Researchers have warned that temperatures at many host venues could reach dangerous levels, raising questions about player welfare, fan safety and match scheduling.

A late decision to ban reusable water bottles from stadiums triggered a major backlash, with critics warning it could increase the risk of heat-related illness. Fifa later clarified its position, allowing sealed disposable water bottles after pressure from supporters, politicians and safety experts.

Extreme weather is another issue. Matches could be delayed by lightning storms, as already happened during a warm-up match involving Saudi Arabia and Puerto Rico in Texas.

Football may want a bigger global footprint, but this tournament will test how far expansion can go before the conditions around the game start to undermine the spectacle itself.

A Defining Moment For Football In America

There is still a huge opportunity here.

The 1994 World Cup helped change football’s place in the American sporting landscape. Now, with stronger domestic leagues, major stadiums, global stars and deeper investment, the 2026 tournament could take the sport to another level in the United States.

JT Batson, chief executive of US Soccer, has described it as a chance to transform what football looks like in America. That may prove true. The crowds, the television audiences and the commercial pull could all be enormous.

But the tournament’s legacy will depend on more than revenue. If fans feel priced out, if political restrictions dominate the story, if heat and weather disrupt matches, or if the event becomes too closely tied to power and profit, the greatest World Cup ever could become remembered for very different reasons.

The stars will arrive. The stadiums will be full, or close to it. The world will watch.

But 2026 may also reveal how much expansion, inflation and political tension football’s greatest competition can absorb before the game itself starts to feel secondary.