The World Cup kicked off yesterday with an inaugural match between co-host Mexico and South Africa. If that fundamental fact about the world’s biggest sporting event escaped the public’s notice, it is because the Western media has focused almost exclusively in the run-up to the tournament on America’s enforcement of its immigration rules.
The FIFA Men’s World Cup runs until 19 July. It is jointly hosted this year by Canada, Mexico and the United States, with a record 48 teams scheduled to battle it out in stadiums spread across 16 cities.
Because of the unprecedented tournament size, the competition is expected to draw unprecedented attention and generate unprecedented activity. FIFA projections indicate that more than five million people will attend at least one of the 104 matches, while around six billion will engage with the World Cup more broadly.
In short, it is primed to be a record-breaking event in more than one sense. But one could be forgiven for not knowing that, given that much of the global coverage has been keen to portray it as scandal-plagued and exclusionary.
Immigration Takes Center Stage in Media Coverage
The news went around the world earlier this week that Somali referee Omar Abdulkadir Artan had been denied permission to enter the US, shutting the door on his part in this year’s proceedings.
Prominent New York Times-adjacent sports publication The Athletic cited a statement it said it received from a senior Trump administration official, who claimed that authorities had found “derogatory information, including association with suspected members of terror organizations” which rendered Artan ineligible for admission to the country.
It is a claim that the press seems happier to fulminate against than to examine. Much less discussed were the comments by Democratic Congressman Rick Larsen, who told the same publication that while he initially thought that FIFA had to step in to resolve the situation, upon receiving further information, he felt that the Customs and Border Protection decision “was probably the right one in this particular case”.
Somalia, incidentally, is one of 19 countries affected by a full travel suspension with the US. However, certain types of visa are immune from the ban.
Some Iranian team officials have been denied US visas, according to the Iranian Football Federation. Pictures of players undergoing the same entry screening as any traveler who has ever entered the US are enraging social media users alleging racial discrimination.
Some fans and some human rights organizations have expressed concerns about the presence of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) personnel and the unnerving effect they might have on players and fans alike.
Taken together, the global press is whipping up a storm in a teacup. Or at least, its anger is largely misdirected.
The Real Scandal
If there is a serious element of scandal involved in the current World Cup, it has much more to do with pricing and travel logistics than with immigration enforcement, which every country has a right to conduct. The United States appears to be conducting it entirely proportionately, given the scale of the World Cup operation.
Of greater concern, late last month the attorneys general of New York and New Jersey launched an investigation into FIFA’s ticketing practices for this World Cup.
“Recent press reports indicate that fans may have been misled about the locations of the seats they were purchasing, and FIFA’s public statements and ticket releases may have contributed to soaring prices. The attorneys general today sent subpoenas to FIFA seeking information about its ticketing practices”, the official statement from the attorneys general read.
FIFA has opted for variable pricing with this World Cup, which sees ticket prices adjusted based on demand, rather than more traditional fixed ticket pricing. As a result, ticket prices for the various stages of this year’s tournament range from the hundreds of dollars to the thousands, with tickets for the final heading toward five figures.
For fans, the price of the tickets is compounded by the fact that the competition spans an entire continent and three countries.
In order to attend multiple games, which may take place in multiple cities, multiple domestic flights and multiple hotel bookings would be required. This is in contrast to the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, which took place over a famously compact area that enabled fans to attend a number of matches in one day.
A lesser obstacle, but no less a problem for avid football fans, is the decision to feature a historic halftime show during the World Cup final, to the detriment of the usual match analysis and discussion. Shakira, Madonna and Korean boy band BTS are due to put on a “curated” performance in support of the FIFA Global Citizen Education Fund.
While such scenes are part and parcel of sporting events in the US, with the Super Bowl featuring a highly anticipated halftime show every year, it is a first for the World Cup and likely an unwelcome one for many fans. European fans, at least, are more accustomed to punditry and speculation than to a mid-match song and dance.
Controversial Competitions Are the World Cup Norm
But these are very different problems from those primarily focused on by the media. Blinded by an institutionalized aversion to Donald Trump and his immigration policy, the attempt to paint this World Cup as a human rights flashpoint falls flat under the slightest scrutiny, especially when considered in light of previous hosts.
History offers far darker examples, beginning with the 1978 World Cup in Argentina under the military junta. The Qatari World Cup four years ago was blighted by allegations of the mistreatment of migrant workers involved in the construction of the country’s stadiums, as well as by the mystery surrounding the death of Marc Bennett.
Bennett was a British travel advisor employed by Qatar Airways to promote the Middle Eastern nation following its selection for the event, who was found dead in his hotel room after planning to leave his job in favor of a Saudi Arabian company.
Or take the 2018 World Cup, hosted by Russia just four years after its annexation of Crimea. Or the 2014 World Cup in Brazil, which saw mass protests over the level of government spending in the tournament, to the perceived detriment of investment in public services and infrastructure.
By comparison, the North American World Cup seems a positively straightforward affair. Whatever the case, if it is remembered poorly, it will not be because of human rights abuses. It will be because of the Americanization of an event that the rest of the world perfected long ago. It will be because of the prioritization of money and spectacle over the sport.