Dr. Karen L. Hartman
Professor in Idaho State University’s Department of Communication, Media, and Persuasion. Her research interests revolve largely around the role of sport in the United States and how language and public relations efforts frame athletes, institutions, and laws. A former Division-I athlete at Furman University, Hartman worked as a publicist in the entertainment industry before going into academia.
Email: karenhartman@isu.edu
How do fans, media, and the general public make sense of the FIFA World Cup? Watching can feel like a clash of emotions as the tournament simultaneously offers a unifying global spectator event while being run by an organization continually confronted with allegations of corruption and other questionable practices. The ensuing tension between these two polarizing views is illustrated in t-shirts and articles proclaiming, “I love soccer but hate FIFA.”
The 2026 FIFA World Cup offered a case study in how the tournament can elicit results ranging from excitement to crisis mode. The tournament broke attendance and viewing records, featured underdog teams winning, all while being played across three countries. But uproars and crises were also present. Before the tournament started, critics argued the average fan could not find tickets to purchase, United States policy complicated VISAs, and fear surrounded the potential involvement of the United States’ Immigration and Customs Enforcement at games. During the tournament more challenges and crises came, arguably the most controversial being President Trump’s call to FIFA’s president, Gianni Infantino, about repealing a U.S. player’s red card. After the Cup, calls came for Infantino’s resignation.
Crisis is not new for FIFA. For years allegations of bribery, corruption, vote scandals, wire-fraud, and indictments have made global headlines. W. Timothy Coombs, a crisis communication researcher, identifies how crises can have a Velcro effect. Stakeholders will assign more blame to an organization in a crisis if the organization already has a negative reputation. Increased attributions of blame increase reputational damage, reduce purchase intention, and increase negative word-of-mouth. FIFA’s past crises, therefore, impact how stakeholders view the organization and the World Cup today. A July 2026 survey found that only 2 out of 10 Americans have a favorable view of FIFA.
Coombs also identifies that it is not just the Velcro effect and prior reputation that impacts organizations. Organizations are also impacted by the type of crisis they are in. FIFA exists in a unique state of crisis because of the types of crises they face and how emotionally stakeholders react. FIFA no longer experiences regular crises. Instead, the organization faces extreme crises as they are accused of things like fraud and work with nations with human rights violations. The resulting media and fan attention feels more raw, more angry, more damaging, and more consistent.
According to researchers like Coombs and Elina Tachkova, two types of crises exist: regular crises and sticky crises. Regular crises are crises that impact an organization’s reputation or profit and elicit low-intensity emotions. Sticky crises, on the other hand, elicit high-intensity emotions, are more complex, have moral implications, and can span an industry and geographical areas. Sticky crises are far more challenging to address as they typically involve moral outrage and have unique communication demands beyond traditionally used crisis response strategies.
The “I love soccer but hate FIFA” tension exists because FIFA is constantly dealing with sticky crises. The best way to address sticky crises with moral outrage is through atonement, which includes implementing corrective action, expressing concern, and recognizing the moral violation. Doing these things could be a step forward for FIFA to reconcile the organization and its actions with stakeholders.
But FIFA, pulling fans back from the outraged end of the continuum, appears to be doubling down on excitement and spectacle. The 2026 World Cup marked large-scale changes for the tournament and was the first time FIFA used three countries to host. Spanning Mexico, Canada, and the United States, the Cup also featured more teams participating and more games played than ever before. While previous World Cups had 32 teams playing 64 matches, a standard that had been in place since 1998, this Cup featured 48 teams playing 104 matches. The expansion of hosts, teams, and games will likely continue for the next Cup. In 2030, FIFA again will have three host countries, Spain, Morocco, and Portugal, in addition to three opening matches played in Argentina, Uruguay, and Paraguay to celebrate the Cup’s 100th anniversary. Spanning six countries, the 2030 tournament may also expand to feature 64 teams. According to Infantino, increasing the number of teams to 64 is “definitely an issue that will be examined and discussed in the relevant committees after this World Cup[…]Every nation should be allowed to dream of participating in the World Cup.”
So, how do fans, media, and the general public make sense of the FIFA World Cup? While they might not understand or come to terms with the competing tensions, most appear to live with the messiness as the tournament remains popular. FIFA will continue moving back and forth between both ends of the continuum from crisis to excitement, with the 2030 Cup poised to be more spectacle and the 2034 Cup poised to be more controversy.
In 2034, FIFA will return to a single host country, Saudi Arabia. Having a single country host, especially one with a history of human rights violations, will contrast the multiple hosts for the 2026 and 2030 Cups and will emphasize the sticky crises FIFA exists in – resulting in the same tensions and encouraging stakeholders to love soccer but hate FIFA.
