Carole Gomez
Graduate assistant at the Institute of Sport Sciences at the University of Lausanne (ISSUL), where she is pursuing a PhD. Her research examines how international sports federations address gender-based violence, particularly through the lens of harassment and abuse, within their respective sports. She is particularly interested in the development and use of the concept of “safeguarding.”
No two FIFA World Cups are ever quite alike. The 2022 tournament in Qatar was marked by widespread criticism over migrant workers’ rights, human rights, and the treatment of the LGBTQIA+ community, prompting boycotts and public protests from football actors and civil society organisations. The 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup, co-hosted by the United States, Canada, and Mexico, appears as a striking contrast. Although the international context remains highly complex, protests seem to appear fewer and far less visible. But is it really the case? Rather than fading away, contestation seems to have evolved, taking new forms and involving different actors. While calls for boycotts were largely absent, protests instead emerged through individual football figures, civil society organizations highlighting domestic issues, and institutional actors challenging the governance of the tournament.
First, whereas several European national teams had taken visible positions during the 2022 World Cup (through public statements, symbolic messages on their shirts, or the #OneLove armband), such collective mobilization had largely disappeared by 2026. For instance, Germany, one of the most outspoken teams in Qatar, remained noticeably more discreet, following calls from sporting director Rudi Völler to keep football and politics separate. The silence surrounding the exclusion of Somali referee Omar Artan, denied entry into the United States, further illustrated this shift.
However, political contestation had not disappeared. Three examples could illustrate it. Iran’s participation was repeatedly questioned following the launch of armed conflict initiated by the United States and Israel against Tehran on February 28, 2026. After relocating its training base to Mexico, the team encountered visa refusals affecting members of its technical staff as well as restrictions on internal travel before matches. The Iranian Football Federation subsequently announced its intention to file a complaint with FIFA. A second example came from Egypt. Head coach Hossam Hassan appeared on the pitch holding a Palestinian flag, dedicating the victory “to our Palestinian brothers.” During a post-match press conference, he urged the international community not to turn away from the situation in Gaza. Several rounds later, Argentine players reignited diplomatic tensions between Buenos Aires and London by displaying a banner reading “Las Malvinas son argentinas” following their victory over England, recalling the enduring dispute stemming from the 1982 War. While FIFA’s Task Force, chaired by Andrew Giuliani, a close ally of President Trump, considered that no disciplinary action was warranted, the British government nevertheless called on FIFA to investigate.
Second, the mobilization of institutions and civil society organizations has been particularly noteworthy. Considering the high cost of tickets, the issue of pricing has become a subject of controversy. Whilst Spanish striker Borja Iglesias, well known for his public engagement on political issues, has criticized the exorbitant ticket prices, it is above all the mobilization of various institutions that has been interesting to follow. After unsuccessfully calling on FIFA in December 2025 to intervene, Football Supporters Europe (FSE) lodged a formal complaint before the European Commission, accusing FIFA of excessive pricing, opaque and unfair ticketing procedures, and abuse of its dominant market position. Initially pursued within the European legal framework, these claims soon found an echo in the U.S. when the Attorneys General of New York and New Jersey launched an investigation only days before the tournament began, thereby shifting these protests into the courtroom. Equally significant was the important mobilization of the NGO FairSquare, which has closely monitored FIFA’s governance for several years. Through its “Reboot FIFA” campaign, the organization called for comprehensive governance reforms and simultaneously filed a complaint before FIFA’s Ethics Committee concerning the circumstances surrounding the attribution of the FIFA Peace Prize, awarded to President Trump in December 2025. FairSquare’s demands for greater transparency received support from the Norwegian Football Federation as well as from fifty Members of the European Parliament in the weeks preceding the tournament.
Finally, protests were taking place outside the stadiums. Rather than directly opposing the organization of the World Cup itself, they used the tournament as an opportunity to amplify domestic issues before a global audience. Although demonstrations within the United States had initially generated considerable concern, particularly because of fears of clashes involving Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), it was ultimately Mexico that witnessed the most visible protests. In the weeks leading up to the opening match at Mexico City’s Estadio Azteca, teachers organized large-scale strikes and demonstrations demanding higher wages. At the same time, Mexican civil society groups continued campaigning for justice for the country’s disappeared persons. Among the most innovative initiatives was the production and distribution of redesigned Panini sticker albums, replacing the traditional football players with photographs of missing individuals. This powerful visual campaign sought to attract both national and international media attention to one of Mexico’s most pressing human rights issues.
Ultimately, the 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup was far from devoid of protest. Rather, it seems to reveal changing forms of contestation. Calls for boycotts (whose effectiveness had been limited in previous tournaments) gave way to more fragmented, diversified, and strategically targeted forms of mobilization. This evolution reminds us that mega-sporting events continue to constitute privileged arenas for political expression, where geopolitical tensions, governance disputes, and domestic social struggles intersect through constantly evolving repertoires of collective action.
