Dr James L. Cherney
Associate Professor in the Department of Communication Studies at the University of Nevada, Reno. His work examines ableism’s impact throughout society, particularly in the areas of sport, law, and media. He is the author of Ableist Rhetoric: How We Know, Value, and See Disability (2019, Pennsylvania State University Press)
Email: jcherney@unr.edu
On December 16th, 2025, the Sports and Rights Alliance (SRA) announced that FIFA was facing complaints that changes in policies related to disabled attendees were effectively excluding them from the World Cup. The SRA noted that such exclusions went against “FIFA’s Statutes, Human Rights Policy, and international human rights standards” and that they directly contradicted FIFA’s claims that the 2026 games would set new standards in diversity and inclusion.
Among the changes this year, FIFA began charging higher prices for caregiver seats accompanying wheelchair attendees, and they were unable to guarantee that an attendant could sit next to the wheelchair user. Parking charges for accessible spots ran as high as $300 in Los Angeles, USA, which created another financial hardship. Such issues are complicated by the three-host format, as access policies in host countries differ. Mexico makes no provision for companion seating, and the United States does not cap resale prices even for accessible seats. These issues mean that many wheelchair and mobility-assisted users were unable to afford and effectively excluded from attending the games in person.
At the time the games began, FIFA had not addressed these barriers for wheelchair-using fans, yet they did take a step toward improving access during the games. On May 21st they announced that this World Cup would be the “first FIFA tournament to have sign language interpretation broadcasts for all matches.” FIFA explicitly stated that this was part of its efforts at “enhancing accessibility for fans with disabilities” and that the policy would “best serve the diverse community of football fans.” FIFA contended that this move demonstrated that it is “working hard to raise the standard for inclusion in the sport, and to provide services and support that allow all fans to enjoy the beautiful game” and that it showed their dedication to “making sure that all fans – including those with disabilities and their families and friends – have an excellent experience at this year’s FIFA World Cup.”
While signing during a broadcast does provide a measure of access and visibly signals an attempt to increase accessibility, in the context of the earlier concerns it can be read as resembled a tactic primarily designed to repair damage to FIFA’s image caused by the ticket, parking, and seating problems.
By appearing to address wheelchair users’ accessibility issues by providing measures that increase access for deaf fans, the policy aligns with the ableist tendency to treat all disabled people as a homogenous group of anyone not able-bodied. Moreover, to access signed broadcasts users need to download, adjust the settings, and watch the matches on FIFA’s app, meaning that audiences desiring sign language interpretation are functionally segregated from many viewing venues. Two additional issues further limit the significance of access provided by the policy.
First, the policy involves signing in only two sign languages. During the group stage broadcasts in the US and Canada will include American Sign Language (ASL), and those in Mexico will include Mexican Sign Language (LSM).
Unfortunately, most deaf people on the planet do not use either language. ASL is widely used in the United States and Canada, and LSM is common in Mexico, but deaf people from other countries and localities use many distinct sign languages. Countries identify 131 different official sign languages, and adding unofficial linguistic variations results in an estimated 300 different sign languages worldwide.
As with distinct spoken languages, signers cannot readily understand signers using another language, even when culturally associated with the same spoken language. For example, ASL and British Sign Language, while used in primarily English-speaking countries, are completely incompatible and use distinct signs, grammar, and even fingerspelling handshapes for the alphabet.
Second, already present measures tend to make redundant and lessen the value of adding ASL and LSM to broadcasts. Closed captioning, for example, is already widely available in the languages used by audiences receiving the broadcast, thereby providing access for many. Textual overlays displaying such information as team names, the score, and the match-time also contextualize the video of play on the field.
Moreover, football already employs a wide variety of signs that render the sport visible and readily comprehended by many deaf audiences. The uniforms visually identify the separate teams and distinguish the goal keepers, and teams use numeric signboards to specify players involved in substitutions. While clearly not a language, officials use body, card, and flag signals to communicate with the audiences and with each other, thereby making visible important decisions and assessments related to game play. Players themselves signal visually by celebrating goals, displaying anguish, and demonstrating that they are in pain or are injured. Broadcasts display crowd reactions at such critical moments such as goals and near-missed shots, which visibly convey fan euphoria or agony.
Simply put, the benefit of increased access for some fans hardly compares to the cost felt by those who were effectively priced out of the stadium. They have lost the chance to carry with them the memory of having been there in person to cheer their team.
