FIFA's Logic for Expelling Russia Demands the Same for the USA in 2026
Hosting rights require integrity. America’s aggression, human rights failures, and threats to visiting fans show it is unfit to host, by FIFA’s own standard.
When FIFA’s Congress expelled Russian teams from its competitions in the wake of the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, it set a profound and unambiguous precedent. The governing body declared that Russia’s flagrant breach of international law and the UN Charter had created a scenario that “endanger[ed] the security and integrity of football.” This was not merely a geopolitical stance; it was an invocation of FIFA’s own foundational principles - its statutes, its human rights policy, its ethical code. It affirmed that the privilege of participation in global football is contingent upon a basic adherence to the rules-based international order and the dignity of all members.
That precedent now hangs like a sword over FIFA’s own flagship event. To allow the United States to serve as the primary host of the 2026 FIFA World Cup, in light of its own demonstrable and systemic violations of the very same FIFA principles, would constitute an act of such breathtaking hypocrisy that it would irrevocably shatter the credibility of the organisation further. A clear-eyed examination of FIFA’s own rulebook reveals that the United States, through its domestic policies and foreign actions, has rendered itself an unfit host. The 2026 tournament must be swiftly and decisively relocated to its co-hosts, Canada and Mexico, to preserve what remains of world football’s integrity.
The most immediate and tangible conflict arises from the stark contradiction between FIFA’s codified human rights commitments and the reality of the American immigration system. Article 3 of FIFA’s Human Rights Policy is unequivocal: FIFA is committed to respecting “all internationally recognised human rights” and pledges to “use its leverage to promote the protection of human rights” by its commercial partners and host countries. This is not a suggestion; it is a binding policy tied to the organisation’s statutes. The operational arm of U.S. immigration policy, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), stands as a direct rejection of this commitment. Documented practices under successive administrations - including the systematic separation of migrant families, the detention of asylum seekers in inhumane conditions, and the creation of a sweeping enforcement regime that targets individuals based on nationality, colour, and ethnicity - have been rigorously condemned by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and UN human rights bodies as violations of international law.
For FIFA to plant its greatest festival in the heart of a nation where such an agency operates with such power is not merely a moral lapse; it is a direct violation of its own policy. The tournament’s promise of a joyous, unifying gathering becomes a cruel illusion for millions of potential spectators from around the world, who must weigh their dream of attending against the very real risk of being ensnared by a system FIFA’s own advisors would deem oppressive. When a fan from Iran, Venezuela, or Mexico must fear that a minor visa irregularity or a misplaced social media post could lead to detention and deportation, the concept of “safety and security for all participants,” another cornerstone of FIFA’s hosting requirements, is rendered null and void. By granting the U.S. the hosting rights, FIFA is not using its leverage to promote human rights; it is wilfully ignoring their abuse, even rewarding it, becoming complicit in laundering the reputation of a system its rules ostensibly condemn.
Additionally, FIFA’s requirement for hosts to guarantee a secure and non-discriminatory environment is fundamentally undermined by the unique domestic landscape of the United States. The hosting agreement for a World Cup is a contract that implicitly assumes a baseline of public safety and institutional stability. The United States, however, presents a risk profile that is aberrant among developed democracies and is in direct conflict with FIFA’s duty of care. The nation’s epidemic of gun violence, facilitated by permissive laws that allow the open and concealed carry of firearms in public spaces, creates a security nightmare of unimaginable scale. Police forces from around the world, accustomed to managing football crowds where the gravest threat is a thrown bottle, are utterly unprepared to operate in an environment where a disgruntled fan or a political extremist could be armed with an assault rifle or a 9mm semi-automatic pistol. The January 6th insurrection was not an isolated event but a violent symptom of a deep and volatile political schism, proving that large-scale political violence on American soil is a clear and present danger.
The parallels between the actions that triggered Russia’s expulsion and the recent foreign policy conduct of the United States are too glaring for FIFA to ignore without exposing its principles as entirely transactional. FIFA justified its action against Russia by stating its aggression “endanger[ed] the security and integrity of football.” By this exact same standard, the United States stands guilty. The recent attack and kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, involving U.S. Special Forces and publicly cheered by senior U.S. officials, was not a covert spy game but an openly advocated act of regime change that flagrantly violates the UN Charter’s prohibition against the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of a sovereign state. Venezuela is a member association of FIFA. How can the organisation, in good faith, demand that players, officials, and supporters travel to and compete in a country whose government actively seeks to violently overthrow and kidnap leadership? This creates an unconscionable security dilemma and a toxic atmosphere that poisons the spirit of sporting fellowship. Similarly, the overt threats to the sovereignty of neighbours - the threats aimed at Mexico through tariff threats and the cavalier, war hawk-like rhetoric of purchasing or taking Greenland by force - demonstrate a pattern of bullying contempt for the very “friendly relations” that FIFA’s statutes aim to promote. These actions do not merely happen in a parallel geopolitical universe; they directly impact the football community. They create tangible fear and legitimate security concerns for member associations who are meant to be equal participants in the World Cup festival. If endangering the integrity of football through external aggression was the standard for Russia, it must be the standard for the United States. To claim otherwise is to admit that FIFA’s rules are not principles, but weapons deployed selectively against geopolitical adversaries.
The corruption of the process itself further violates the ethical framework FIFA has painstakingly, if belatedly, tried to erect. The FIFA Code of Ethics, in its preamble, emphasises “integrity, ethical conduct, [and] dignity” as the pillars of the federation. The scandalous award of the inaugural FIFA Peace Prize by FIFA President Gianni Infantino to President Donald Trump in exchange for favourable treatment is a corruption so profound it stains the tournament at its source. This was not a bag of cash handed to a voting delegate; it was an attempt to traffic in the world’s ultimate symbol of moral authority, to prostitute the ideal of peace itself for corporate and political favour. It reveals that the U.S. hosting rights are secured not by merit or alignment with FIFA’s values, but by a sordid quid pro quo [just like Qatar, just like Saudi Arabia] that makes a mockery of the Code of Ethics. It transforms the World Cup from a sporting crown into a bargaining chip in a corrupt deal fronted by Infantino, undermining the integrity of the entire institution. When the process of awarding and safeguarding the host status is itself ethically compromised, the event loses its legitimacy before a ball is even kicked.
FIFA now stands at a historic crossroads. The 2026 World Cup was conceived as a celebration of unity across North America. Yet, the primary host nation has demonstrated, through policy and action, a fundamental incompatibility with the regulations and spirit of FIFA and the World Cup itself. The path of least resistance - to proceed as planned - is also the path of profound moral and institutional failure. It would signal to the world that FIFA’s Human Rights Policy is mere window-dressing, its Code of Ethics a joke, and its precedent against Russia an act of political theatre, not principle. It would tell every fan, player, and member association from a disfavoured nation that their safety and rights are secondary to the commercial and political interests of FIFA and its president, Gianni Infantino.
There is a clear, viable, and principled alternative, FIFA must exercise the clause of paramount interest in its statutes and re-centre the 2026 World Cup as a Canada-Mexico event - even at this late stage. These nations, while imperfect, more closely align with the hosting requirements of safety, and a commitment to a rules-based international order. The stadiums and infrastructure are already part of the joint plan; the transition, while complex, is feasible.
The beautiful game is at a precipice. To host the World Cup in the United States under the current conditions is to knowingly stage a festival of football on a foundation of authoritarianism, racism, contradiction, coercion, and compromised ethics. FIFA has the tool of precedent in its hands and its own rulebook as its guide. It must find the courage to use them. It must declare that the actions of the United States - its human rights violations via ICE, its threat to fan safety, its aggression against fellow FIFA members, and the corrupted process involving Trump and Infantino - have collectively created a situation that, just as in Russia, “endangers the security and integrity of football.” The red card must be shown. The United States must be stripped of the 2026 FIFA World Cup and Infantino must be overthrown as its corrupt tin pot dictator.
A hard hitting commentary on the double standards between the expulsion of Russia and the hosting of the World Cup 2026 in the USA.
Without going into the political depths of the issue, it is plain to see money talks and patronage comes before principle.
Keep up your impeccable journalism Andy, the Power of the Pen is Mighty !
You couldn't pay me to attend the upcoming world cup.
Giannini Infantino really wants strung up, what with his arse licking of the orange turd, a meaningless sweetener of some tinpot peace(ha!) medal and now double standards when it comes to FIFA rules.
You must have to be a corrupt devious bastard to become FIFA head boy just like Platini, Blatter etc.