Removing the United States as a co-host of the 2026 World Cup would be a painful loss for almost everyone. Fans would miss the chance to see soccer’s greatest event in or near their hometowns. Cities and businesses, both large and small, would lose the economic benefits they were counting on. It would create an unprecedented logistical and political nightmare on a global scale. The situation would be deeply saddening—and yet, entirely justified.
It gives me no pleasure to say this. For over 15 years, the United States has been eager to host a men’s World Cup. That desire only grew stronger after failing to outbid Russia and Qatar for the 2018 and 2022 tournaments. After finally securing the 2026 hosting rights alongside Canada and Mexico, the American soccer community was ready to showcase how the sport has become woven into the nation’s fabric—32 years after first hosting in 1994. Soccer’s rising popularity in the U.S. has inspired other American sports to experiment with new formats, encouraged deeper engagement with the global sporting community, and fueled important conversations about society and culture. The 2026 World Cup was seen as the perfect opportunity for the world to witness not just how much the U.S. has improved at soccer, but how much soccer has improved the U.S.
I, too, once shared this optimistic outlook. Much of my career covering American soccer has been built on the belief that the sport will continue to grow here. The 2026 World Cup was central to that hope. I admit I have a vested interest in the tournament’s success. As a lifelong fan, hosting the World Cup felt like a dream come true. As a journalist, I hoped it would create millions of new North American soccer fans eager to follow the sport for years to come.
Perhaps I was naive. The tournament might still win over new fans, but at what cost? Sky-high ticket prices have pushed out grassroots supporters. Heavy demands on host cities have drained public funds. FIFA has consistently supported a blatantly corrupt administration. And now, reckless state violence has made it difficult to justify holding the World Cup here at all. Safety, justice, freedom, and the very functioning of society are under threat. To many American soccer fans, the game once called “the most important of the least important things” now feels simply unimportant.
In the past three weeks, federal agents have killed two innocent people in Minneapolis. Neither posed a threat to the paramilitary forces that shot them. We know this because we’ve seen the horrifying videos—from multiple angles, analyzed and replayed. Yet top government officials insist on labeling Renee Good and Alex Pretti as “domestic terrorists,” claiming they were the aggressors, in stark contradiction to the overwhelming evidence. When truth is so openly disregarded, how can we trust these authorities to host a safe and secure World Cup?
The broader picture is just as troubling. In 2025 alone, 32 people died in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody. According to The Trace, a nonprofit tracking gun violence, immigration officers have fired at people 19 times since the crackdown began—a number believed to be an undercount. That includes three killings in 2025, now at least five with the recent deaths in Minnesota. Despite claiming to target criminals, Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown has detained more people with no criminal record than any other group. These raids have largely focused on Democratic-leaning metropolitan areas.Ten of the eleven U.S. World Cup host cities are in states that voted for Joe Biden in 2020, with the Dallas metro area being the only exception. FIFA President Gianni Infantino stated last year that “the most important message that football can convey right now is one of peace and unity.” But how can soccer promote that message when its premier event is being held in a country led by an administration focused on division? This is a country that has detained a foreign leader, potentially violating international law. It has threatened allies with military action over control of foreign territory. It has picked countless fights, even with its World Cup co-hosts—the very nations it should be partnering with to welcome global soccer fans.
Do these actions reflect a safe country ready to host an influx of international visitors? Is this a place where people would want to spend thousands of dollars to visit, even before buying match tickets? I never thought I’d say it, but on this issue, I sympathize with Sepp Blatter.
There has been some talk of a boycott, though it remains a faint murmur. If enough countries were to participate, FIFA might be compelled to act. While justified, such a scenario is hard to envision. FIFA is no stranger to awarding World Cups to autocratic or disruptive nations. A boycott would mean lost revenue and a logistical nightmare to reschedule. Moreover, there’s a prevailing belief in soccer’s highest circles that the sport itself will emerge unharmed, regardless of which government FIFA aligns with.
“With all due respect to current world leaders, football is bigger than them,” CONCACAF President Victor Montagliani said last year. “Football will survive their regime and their government and their slogans.”
Yet, for now, football’s flagship event remains partly under this administration’s influence. Donald Trump remarked last year that if host cities are considered too dangerous or unfit, “We’re going to move the event to some place where it’s going to be appreciated and safe.” He was referring to relocating matches within the U.S., but one could hardly argue if the tournament were moved out of the country entirely.
Frequently Asked Questions
Of course Here is a list of FAQs about the statement Taking the World Cup away from the United States would be deeply regrettable and completely justified
BeginnerLevel Questions
1 What does this statement even mean
It means that while it would be a major disappointment and a logistical setback to move the tournament from the US there might be very strong valid reasons to do so
2 Why would taking the World Cup away from the US be deeply regrettable
The US has massive stadiums modern infrastructure strong security and a proven ability to host huge events It guarantees financial success global viewership and a smooth experience for fans and teams
3 Okay then why could it be completely justified
It could be justified if the host country fails to meet its legal ethical or contractual promises to FIFA or the global communityfor example concerning discrimination major security failures or significant human rights issues linked to the event
4 Has this ever happened before
Yes The most famous example is the 2022 World Cup in Qatar which faced immense and justified criticism over migrant worker rights and LGBTQ laws leading many to argue it never should have been awarded there
5 Isnt this just about politics and sports mixing
Its inevitable Megaevents like the World Cup have huge social economic and political impacts The question is whether a hosts actions cross a line that undermines the tournaments values and safety
Advanced Practical Questions
6 What specific issues could justify moving a World Cup from the US
Potential issues include a significant rollback of antidiscrimination protections for players or fans a major failure in safetysecurity planning widespread social unrest that threatens the event or the US government imposing restrictive entry bans on participating nations
7 Who has the power to make this decision
Ultimately FIFAs governing council based on recommendations from its administration and legal bodies It would involve complex contract law regarding breach of host city agreements
8 What are the realworld consequences of moving a tournament
It would be chaotic and incredibly expensive rebooking millions of fans relocating teams and media finding new venues on short notice and massive legal battles over broken contracts and financial losses
