Donald Trump promised that the United States would not fail. “We never fail, and it will be a great World Cup,” he said after the 2026 World Cup was awarded. Gianni Infantino, president of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association -FIFA-, also raised expectations at the White House when he said that the United States, Mexico and Canada wanted to organise “the greatest World Cup ever”. Trump replied: “Right, okay. We’ll do it.” The promise was clear. Yet, even before the tournament has started, that idea has already been damaged by visa problems, border controls, venue changes, a controversial ticketing system that appears more focused on business than fans, and a growing sense that access to the tournament depends as much on sport as on US immigration policy.
The issue no longer affects only FIFA. Kirsty Coventry, president of the International Olympic Committee -IOC-, said the organisation is following “everything that’s happening daily” and was confident that, in two years, Los Angeles 2028 -LA28- will be able to overcome “a number of the challenges” now facing the World Cup. Her message is intended to convey control and anticipation, but it raises a far more uncomfortable question: can the IOC guarantee Games that are open to all delegations, fans, media and officials when the final decision on who enters the United States does not depend on Olympism, but on the host country’s borders, security and visa policy?
The IOC is watching the World Cup as a test case for LA28
Coventry explained that a taskforce is working alongside the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee -USOPC- to learn from the World Cup’s problems and ensure that athletes and their entourages can reach the Games. “It’s our job to continue to monitor that and to advocate for athletes and their entourages to be able to ensure that they are there in the LA28 Games,” she said. But a taskforce does not replace an immigration authority. It can facilitate procedures, but it cannot overturn political decisions. It can prepare federations, but it cannot change entry criteria by itself. That is the issue the 2026 World Cup is exposing before LA28 enters its decisive phase: sport can organise the calendar, venues and accreditations, but it does not fully control the gateway into the country hosting the event.
The case of Iran is the most political and visible example. The team has set up its camp in Tijuana, Mexico, -not USA- after months of tension and visa problems affecting part of its staff and federation officials. That solution has been possible because the World Cup is spread across three countries. The question for LA28 is unavoidable: what would happen at an Olympic Games with a delegation from a country in diplomatic tension, under sanctions or even in open conflict with the United States? The World Cup’s three-host model provides a flexibility that Olympism will not have. At LA28, an Olympic delegation needs to live, train, compete, receive medical support, move around and operate within the Games system.
More countries affected and a disadvantage before competing
Other countries have also faced different situations in recent days. Japan had to change training facilities in Monterrey because of the condition of the pitch; the Democratic Republic of the Congo saw its preparation disrupted by health restrictions linked to Ebola; South Africa had visa problems involving a member of its coaching staff; Iraq faced questioning and entry difficulties involving striker Aymen Hussein and the team photographer; Switzerland had the case of Breel Embolo, who joined the squad late after his authorisation to enter the country was placed under review; and Senegal and Uzbekistan were involved in security checks that generated criticism and discomfort.
Not all of these episodes have the same seriousness or the same origin, but access to the United States has become a sporting variable. A team arriving for an official competition should not have to begin its tournament amid questioning, invasive checks, document uncertainty or a sense of unequal treatment. At an Olympic Games, with more countries, more disciplines and delegations of very different sizes, the risk increases. If access to the country becomes an obstacle course, some athletes may begin the Games at a disadvantage before they even compete.
The Omar Artan case and commercial power
The case of Omar Abdulkadir Artan captures the issue with particular clarity. The Somali referee had been appointed by FIFA for the World Cup and was still denied entry on arrival in Miami. For LA28, that precedent requires attention beyond the athletes. The scale will be larger, the institutional diversity greater and, in many cases, the room for manoeuvre narrower. If sporting accreditation does not guarantee access, the problem stops being individual and becomes institutional.
Fans have also been caught in the tension between spectacle and access. The 2026 World Cup has raised concerns over restrictions affecting supporters from some countries, revoked travel authorisations, high prices, hospitality packages, complex mobility between venues and huge distances between host cities.
The 2026 World Cup does not only challenge the promise made by Trump and Infantino to organise a great tournament. It also forces the IOC to defend its universality and trust its previous work with the United States. Coventry said the IOC is “confident” it can overcome several of the problems now facing the World Cup. But the final word on visas, security and entry into the country will probably belong to the United States.
Last related articles
