David
Rowe, Western
Sydney University
We are well into
this largest and longest FIFA
men’s World Cup. Before it kicked off in Mexico City
on June 11, there was intense media and public discussion of
its geopolitics.
After
all, it is the first to have a co-host (the United States)
engaged
in open military combat with one of the participating
FIFA members (Iran). This tension is accompanied by several
others, not least between the US and the other
hosts, Mexico and Canada.
The second Trump
administration has also picked a series of fights with many
of the world’s
nations.
Critical commentary about the
prospects of a conflict-ridden World Cup was, for these
reasons, widely spread across the world’s media after Trump
returned to power in 2025.
Advertisement – scroll to continue reading
Let the games
begin
As the games have got going, though, the
tide of World Cup political commentary has notably receded.
The absence of any major incidents involving visiting teams
and fans at the time of writing has directed most eyes
towards the on-field games and off-field
fun.
What does this unfolding story tell
us about the rhythms of media and public attention at a
global extravaganza like the World Cup?
The
downplaying of politics is, in fact, no big surprise. The various
stages of a mega sport event present variable
opportunities to focus on sporting, social, political,
cultural and environmental issues. They unfold as the
four-part sequence of: host bid, event lead-up, sporting
action and legacy.
These rhythms of concentrated
attention are well understood by the various parties
involved in trying to set the public agenda of a gigantic
sporting carnival.
World governing bodies like FIFA
and the International Olympic Committee (IOC), and the
hosts, are most vulnerable to moral and ethical criticism
before sporting competition commences. At that point, the
most compelling subjects – athletes’ performances,
exciting contests and the responses to them – are yet to
be formed as compelling narratives.
By
contrast, before the teams take the field, historical and
contemporary issues can dominate the frame. These
include:
- expenditure of scarce public
funds - player and fan
exploitation - political
oppression - human
rights - institutional
inequalities - “sportswashing”
- and environmental
consequences.
The journalists
who cover the tournament, especially those travelling to the
venues, usually have some time to file so-called “colour
stories” before sport takes centre stage. Primed by
preceding political debates, they are able to explore these
broader matters with the authority of “on the spot”
reportage.
But there is no escaping the reality
that World Cups and Olympics are global cultural events for
sporting rather than political reasons. If sport lacked a
deep appeal to those who practise and watch it, there could
be no grand spectacle
in the first place.
Ethics and
fandom
Critical social science and humanities
researchers have historically challenged the comforting
myth that sport is an apolitical escape from everyday
social struggles. But it is a difficult task to recognise
the legitimate pleasures of soccer and other sports while
simultaneously highlighting their negative
consequences.
It may be unwelcome to point
out to fans the stadium they are occupying or watching
on screen was built at the cost of many migrant worker lives
– as was the case of the 2022
Qatar men’s World Cup. Or that, at Qatar and the 2018
Russia
men’s World Cup, LGBTQIA+ players, officials and fans
who travelled to those countries were justifiably nervous
about their safety.
In the 2026 edition, fans may
not be too receptive to suggestions they bought
FIFA-inflated tickets at the expense of the less
affluent. Or occupied some of the seats of fans from the
many countries with denied
or restricted entry to the US.
Or that
international visitors got tickets because many US-based
fans of colour feared attending a “home” World Cup.
Detention and deportation after running a gauntlet of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents loomed
large as a threat, particularly for Hispanic
people.
Intensifying such anxieties, even
Africa’s best referee, the Somalian Omar Artan, was refused
entry to the US on the eve of the World
Cup.
Many fans are also unimpressed by the unedifying
spectacle of FIFA President Gianni Infantino constantly
flattering US President Donald
Trump, apparently tarnishing rather than burnishing the
tournament’s image.
But such reservations are
generally set aside in making World Cup travel plans.
When political
protests occurred before Mexico’s first home game to
take advantage of World Cup-stimulated global profile, most
media coverage was cursory at best. With 104 scheduled
matches, it would take something genuinely dramatic – or
tragic – to wrest the spotlight from the on-field
action.
A juggling act for critical
fans
It is a difficult juggling act to be both
soccer fan and social critic. After tournaments start, it
becomes even harder.
For critical fans the optimal
time for geopolitical commentary is before the first goal is
scored and after the post-tournament hangover takes
hold.
David
Rowe, Emeritus Professor of Cultural Research, Institute
for Culture and Society, Western
Sydney University
This article is
republished from The
Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the
original
article.
