In June 2025, Nielsen’s Global Sports Report identified the United States as one of the world’s most promising football markets: 62 million fans, 62 percent of them expecting their interest to grow around the 2026 World Cup, 76 percent of them Millennial or Gen Z, 34 percent earning over $100,000 in household income, and more receptive to brand sponsorship than any other football market globally except Brazil. FIFA’s projection of $12 billion in tournament revenue was not irrational optimism. It was the logical consequence of concentrating the world’s most popular sport in the world’s most commercially receptive market. Football, as Nielsen documents, attracts 41 percent of all sports sponsorships globally; the 2026 edition was positioned to deepen that dominance in a market where, as the report puts it, the fanbase is “eager to spend with aligned sponsors.” That report was published eight months before the United States launched Operation Epic Fury. On February 28, the US and Israel began “official” military operations against Iran. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei was killed and a conflict involving twelve countries ignited across the Middle East. Iran is a qualified participant in the 2026 World Cup; its group matches are scheduled to take place on US soil, in Los Angeles and Seattle. All of a sudden, the tournament that was designed as FIFA’s commercial and institutional apex has become, in the words of Kristian P. Alexander, an event unfolding “against a geopolitical backdrop that few planners anticipated.”
The most clarifying frame for understanding this moment comes not from sport management scholarship but from political philosophy, as filtered through football. Mads Skauge, paraphrasing Prussian general Clausewitz, renders a conjecture newly urgent amidst the politicization of football: “Football is the continuation of politics by other means.” The provocation is not merely rhetorical. Skauge departs from Christos Kassimeris’ The Politics of Football (2024). Kassimeris documents the historical depth of the football-politics entanglement—from Mussolini’s instrumentalisation of the 1934 World Cup to the geopolitical weight of Iran’s defeat of the United States at France 1998—to argue that the politicization of football is not an intrusion but a structural feature. Along this line, Skauge suggests that “Anyone claiming that football and politics must not be mixed is ignorant. Football has started and ended wars and elected and dismissed heads of state.” The 2026 tournament does not contradict this thesis. It represents its logical, if extreme, intensification: a case in which football has not merely reflected geopolitical tension but has been physically located inside of it.
Additional theoretical contributions, assembled into a single framework, clarify the structure of what is happening. In the introduction of The Geopolitical Economy of Football (2024), Simon Chadwick and Paul Widdop describe football as “a dense network of interconnected nodes and relationships, which bring with them complexity and sensitivity but also contradiction and, possibly, accusations of hypocrisy.” The dominant node in 2026 is the United States. When that node is destabilised—by a war of its own making—the disruption propagates across the entire network: sponsors, federations, co-hosts, broadcasters, and the governing body itself. Chadwick and Widdop observe that “without exception, this is surely the most difficult period in the sport’s modern history,” a diagnosis written before Trump’s second term and before Operation Epic Fury, yet now more prescient than its authors could have anticipated.
Another theoretical layer concerns image laundering and sportswashing. In a chapter included in The Geopolitical Economy of Football, Argyro Elisavet Manoli, Ioannis Konstantopoulos and Georgios Antonopoulos define sportswashing as the process by which “individuals, organisations or regimes/countries use sporting events or teams to improve their public image.” The canonical cases they analyse are intentional: a Gulf state purchases a club, a regime hosts an Olympics, an oligarch acquires a Premier League franchise. The 2026 case presents a structurally different configuration, including the fact that FIFA did not choose to launder the Trump administration’s image. Yet a sequence of institutional decisions—each individually defensible and each commercially rational—has produced the functional equivalent. I propose the concept of “involuntary sportswashing” to describe this configuration: a situation in which a sporting institution is captured by a host state’s political agenda through structural dependency rather than deliberate choice. The distinction from Manoli et al.’s framework is one of agency. Where conventional sportswashing is initiated by the reputationally damaged actor, involuntary sportswashing is imposed on the sporting institution by the dominant network node.
Kristian P. Alexander’s analysis of the 2026 security environment supplies the structural stabiliser that explains why resistance to this capture is so difficult. The tournament, he argues, is “widely viewed within the football world as ‘too big to fail’,” more so with 48 teams participating and FIFA projecting revenues of $12 billion. This financial anticipation implies that, “for national associations, qualification brings major financial rewards, sponsorship opportunities, and prestige. Walking away from the tournament would therefore represent not only a political statement but also a significant economic sacrifice.” This economic gravity acts, as Alexander notes, as “a stabiliser” that prevents meaningful institutional defection. The Nielsen data gives this abstraction a commercial face: the US football market is not merely the largest available venue; it is, per the 2025 Global Sports Report, the demographic future of the global game. For FIFA, challenging the host is not merely diplomatically awkward, but also commercially suicidal.
Moreover, the Iran-World Cup crisis is the empirical spine of this argument, and it unfolds in four phases that collectively map the anatomy of involuntary sportswashing in real time. The first phase precedes the war. In December 2025, Iran’s Football Federation boycotted the World Cup draw in Washington after the United States denied visas to several senior members of its delegation, including federation president Mehdi Taj. Iran demanded that its group matches be relocated from the United States to Mexico; a request that FIFA refused, and the draw proceeded without Iranian representation. These events were consequential before a single missile was fired: they established that the host state’s immigration apparatus operated as a geopolitical filter on the tournament’s participation, and that FIFA would not—or could not—intervene.
The second phase begins with Operation Epic Fury on February 28. Within days of the military campaign’s launch, Iranian Sports Minister Ahmad Donyamali declared on state television: “Considering that this corrupt regime has assassinated our leader, under no circumstances can we participate in the World Cup.” The statement was unambiguous. The host nation had killed the head of state of a qualified participant. When asked about Iran’s possible withdrawal, President Trump said he “really doesn’t care” whether Iran plays. The two statements—placed side by side —compress the geopolitical condition of the tournament into its starkest form. Football’s governing body, in the interval between those two statements, was trapped. Chadwick and Widdop’s observation that football’s network actors face “difficult decisions that, almost inevitably, result in difficult choices needing to be made and the consequences of these decisions having to be managed and evaluated” describes the situation precisely—with the significant caveat that the difficult choice was made not by football but by the dominant network node.
The third phase focuses on negotiation. A fragile and failed ceasefire took effect on April 8. FIFA Secretary General Mattias Grafström met representatives of the Football Federation of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Istanbul on May 16. Iran presented ten conditions for participation, among them visa guarantees for members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Two weeks later at the FIFA Congress in Vancouver on May 30, President Gianni Infantino confirmed that Iran would compete. Their matches remain scheduled for US soil as originally planned—a decision reached, with notable irony, in the same week that Mehdi Taj was denied entry to Canada to attend the Congress itself. The fourth phase is the present. As of a few days before kick-off, the ceasefire is described by analysts as unsteady. A potential group stage encounter between the United States and Iran in Dallas looms as the tournament’s most freighted fixture—a rematch, in an active ceasefire, of the game Kassimeris identifies as a textbook instance of “power relations” enacted on the pitch, when Iran defeated the United States at France 1998.
The Iran crisis is the most concentrated instance of the tournament’s access problem, but it is not the only one. Chadwick and Widdop note that “geography as an influence upon football is somewhat undervalued,” and the 2026 format makes this undervaluation consequential. The US–Mexico border—the physical seam of a tri-national tournament—is a politically weaponised membrane whose permeability is determined by the dominant node. In January 2026, ICE agents shot Renée Nicole Good, intensifying concerns about the treatment of visitors during the summer. Reports emerged of fans staying away from the preceding FIFA Club World Cup, held in the United States, out of fear of apprehension. A travel ban covering twelve countries, including Iran and the qualifying nation Haiti, created a tiered global access architecture that formally contradicts football’s universalist claims. Palestinian officials were denied entry into Canada to attend a FIFA meeting. The tournament that introduced the expanded 48-team format—explicitly designed to broaden global participation—is the most access-restricted in the history of the competition.
Nielsen’s data illuminates a structural contradiction embedded in this access problem. The US football fanbase is 22 percent Hispanic—the demographic most directly exposed to the host state’s immigration enforcement apparatus. The community most commercially valuable to FIFA’s sponsors is the community most vulnerable to the political conditions that FIFA’s institutional alignment with the host has helped to normalise. This is not incidental. It is the demographic face of involuntary sportswashing: the sport’s growth market and the state’s enforcement target are the same population.
Alongside geopolitical conflict and immigration enforcement, there is a third dimension of the security environment that has received less sustained analytical attention but which the data now makes impossible to ignore: the persistence of mass gun violence across the United States in the weeks immediately preceding the tournament. In the period between 1 May and 6 June 2026—the five weeks before the World Cup opens—recorded data from the Gun Violence Archive documents over fifty mass shooting incidents across the country, spanning states that include Texas, Florida, California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, Louisiana, Missouri, Michigan, and New York. The incidents range from shootings in Dallas— one of the nine host cities, scheduled to stage the most matches of any single venue—to events in Philadelphia, Kansas City, and Minneapolis, all of which will receive international visitors for tournament fixtures. This is not a series of isolated incidents. It is the statistical baseline of a country that, in 2026, will host 78 of the tournament’s 104 matches, including every fixture from the quarterfinals onward, both semifinals, the third-place playoff, and the final at MetLife Stadium in New York.
The analytical weight of this data is distinct from the geopolitical threats discussed above. The Iran crisis, the travel ban, and the immigration enforcement climate are all products of deliberate state policy—conditions that could, in principle, be altered by institutional or political decision. Mass gun violence in the United States is not a policy deployed against the tournament. It is an endemic condition of the host society that the tournament must absorb. Alexander observes that for the 2026 security environment, “mega-events like the World Cup already involve extensive security preparations, including intelligence coordination, counterterrorism policing, cyber monitoring, and surveillance technologies,” and that “the United States is expected to treat the tournament as a national security event of the highest order.” But the security architecture designed for counterterrorism and geopolitical threats is a different instrument from the one required to address the quotidian reality of gun violence in cities that will host hundreds of thousands of international visitors. The distinction matters: one threat can be managed through border and intelligence operations; the other is embedded in the civic fabric of the host itself.
Chadwick and Widdop’s network framework is useful here. They argue that football’s geopolitical economy creates conditions in which “everything is connected,” and that organisations involved in the sport “must constantly reconcile competing demands.” The gun violence data adds a node to the 2026 network that FIFA did not model and cannot address: the risk is not external to the host, as a terrorist attack would be, nor is it a product of the host’s foreign policy, as the Iran crisis is. It is constitutive of the environment in which the matches will be played. Kassimeris’ observation that football’s symbolic infrastructure includes stadiums as “religious territory in football religion” carries a different resonance when those stadiums are located in cities where mass shootings occurred in the calendar weeks before international fans were scheduled to arrive. The question that the data poses is not whether a shooting will occur during the tournament—that is a probability calculation beyond this article’s scope—but whether a society with this statistical profile of gun violence can serve as the credible guarantor of the security it has committed to provide.
The mechanism of involuntary sportswashing is traceable in a chain of institutional acts, each individually defensible, collectively constituting a performed political alignment. In December 2025, Infantino presented Trump with the first-ever FIFA Peace Prize at the World Cup draw in Washington—held at Trump’s insistence at the Trump National Golf Club in Doral, Miami. In the weeks that followed, Infantino made multiple visits to the Oval Office alongside Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, and Vice President JD Vance. In May 2026, FIFA confirmed at Vancouver that Iran would play on US soil, providing the Trump administration with a normalising sporting narrative around a ceasefire whose military consequences remain ongoing. None of these were choices to endorse a war. In sequence, they constitute its functional legitimation. Kassimeris’ framework explains the baseline: “football has been instrumental in forming national identity, facilitating international relations and serving political propaganda.” What 2026 reveals is the inversion of that dynamic: it is no longer a state using football as an instrument; it is football being used as an instrument by the state, without the sport’s consent and beyond its capacity to resist.
The commercial network is fracturing under the same pressures. Up to 40 percent of tickets remain unsold at the time of writing. Hotel room rates in Dallas, Miami and Philadelphia have fallen by approximately one third from their peak earlier in the year. The resale market has pushed prices below face value across the majority of US fixtures. These figures stand in direct contrast to Nielsen’s 2025 projections of a market primed for record brand engagement. Chadwick and Widdop observe that non-state commercial actors are “fundamentally re-shaping the sport” and that their involvement carries “complexities and challenges which, even 20 years ago, the sport did not face.” FIFA’s global commercial partners illustrate the point. Kia-Hyundai, a Korean manufacturer whom Trump labelled a “job killer” and subjected to trade tariffs, will display its logos across stadiums in the country of the president who targeted it. Hisense, whose ownership links to the Qingdao province state-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission—an entity that ensures alignment with Chinese Communist Party economic and political goals—operates in a commercial environment defined by the same US administration that has identified China as a strategic adversary. The geopolitical turbulence that FIFA cannot address has been absorbed by the sponsors that depend on it.
Against this institutional silence, a counter-network has formed. Kassimeris’ analysis of football’s symbolic politics—of how “crests, mythologised players, stadiums, anthems, flags and banners” function as “important symbols and an integrated part of clubs’ cultural heritage,” and of how supporter mobilisation constitutes a form of political agency—frames the resistance that has formed around 2026. Ninety civil society organisations wrote an open letter to Infantino warning that FIFA risks being used as a public relations instrument to rehabilitate an administration whose policies threaten the safety and dignity of the tournament’s visitors. Political figures and fan groups in France called for a boycott. England’s LGBTQ+ supporter organisation, Three Lions Pride, urged fans to stay away over concerns about immigration enforcement and civil liberties. Dutch parliamentarians received a petition to the same effect. Spanish women’s handball players appeared at an international match wearing pro-Palestinian symbols on their shoes. These are not peripheral gestures. They are the exercise of what Kassimeris identifies as football’s counter-political potential: “that spontaneous street protests reverse a decision made among the world’s most powerful in 48 hours could not happen in any other sport.” The Super League collapse is an example; the 2026 question is whether equivalent collective pressure can move an institution whose too-big-to-fail logic is worth $12 billion.
What 2026 demands of football’s stakeholders is a question that all theoretical sources raise without fully resolving. Kassimeris notes that “describing a phenomenon is easier than doing something about them.” Manoli et al. argue that the conditions enabling sportswashing require structural regulatory responses, not merely individual critical mindsets. Chadwick and Widdop call for stakeholders with a “sharp sense of cause-and-effect” allied to geopolitical risk literacy. Alexander identifies the specific pressure point: that FIFA “risks appearing aligned with US policy if it ignores boycott calls or discourages political expression by players and fans.” Nielsen’s data reframes the normative question in commercial terms: if 67 percent of global football fans find sponsor brands more appealing, those same fans are now watching FIFA perform institutional silence in the face of a war, a border enforcement regime, and the statistical reality of mass gun violence in the cities where the matches will be played. Three obligations follow from this convergence. FIFA must acknowledge publicly, not merely manage privately, that its commercial dependency on the United States has produced a condition of involuntary sportswashing—silence is itself a political act. National federations must protect their athletes’ right to political expression without requiring FIFA’s permission. And the academic and policy community must develop frameworks adequate to the genuinely new configuration that 2026 presents—one in which the threats to a global mega-event are not imported from outside the host society but are constitutive of it.
The 2026 World Cup will proceed. The too-big-to-fail logic, Iran’s eventual confirmation, and the financial weight of 48 nations’ participation ensure that. But proceeding is not the same as succeeding, and a successful tournament is not the same as a moment of global solidarity. The concept of “involuntary sportswashing,” proposed here, names the structural trap that FIFA cannot escape through goodwill alone: a situation in which the laundering effect is produced not by intention but by the accumulated weight of commercial decisions that have made genuine institutional autonomy impossible. Nielsen documented the promise in June 2025: 62 million fans, the most brand-receptive audience in global football, a demographic future of which any governing body would want to be a part. The country that hosts those fans recorded more than fifty mass shootings in the five weeks before the tournament opened. Its government is in a ceasefire with a team scheduled to play on its soil. Its immigration apparatus deters the very visitors whose presence justifies the commercial projections on which the entire enterprise rests. Infantino presented Trump with a Peace Prize in December 2025 and confirmed Iran’s participation on US soil five months later. The coin that Skauge says football and politics share—paraphrasing Prussian general Clausewitz—has never been more dangerous to hold, and FIFA is holding it with both hands.
Further Reading on E-International Relations
