As Mexico and South Africa open the 2026 FIFA World Cup at Estadio Azteca in Mexico City, the tournament’s reputation for corruption, costs, and surveillance is colliding with real-world controversies expected to follow it into the United States—where most mat
By the time Mexico and South Africa are ready to take the field at Mexico City’s cavernous Estadio Azteca for the opening match of the 2026 FIFA World Cup. it won’t just be the kickoff of a tournament. It will be the kickoff of a set of arguments that have followed this World Cup for months—arguments about spectacle. money. security. and who gets treated like they belong.
El Tri will play at home at 7. 300 feet above sea level. in front of roughly 80. 000 supporters. and is expected to be heavily favored to win. South Africa’s fans. traveling from across the Atlantic. are expected to bring an upbeat. colorful edge to the first night. And whatever happens on the pitch—whether the game is thrilling or boring—the broader attention will likely lean toward showmanship. spectacle. and disorder.
Some of that disorder has already made itself visible in Mexico City, including a teachers’ strike and left-wing street protests. But even that, the article stresses, has nothing to do with Donald Trump. It also says he will not be on hand to get booed and pretend he’s being cheered. However security is handled. the expectation is that there will be no ICE officers surveying crowds with facial-recognition software and abducting people for unstated reasons. and that everyone who needed a visa to attend the match. as far as the writer knows. got one with minimal fuss.
There is a quiet irony in where the tournament begins. The first couple of games—Mexico City and then later in Guadalajara—are taking place outside the United States. even though roughly 80 percent of the overall tournament will be held in the U.S. including both semifinals and the July 19 final at MetLife Stadium in New Jersey. South Korea is set to play the Czech Republic in Guadalajara later on Thursday.
Yet the optimism around the opening matches is fragile. because almost everything negative that could be said about this World Cup. in the article’s view. is already being treated as true. It describes the tournament as an “egregiously expensive festival” of interlocking consumerism and nationalism. plagued by staggering levels of corruption. and set against a visibly crumbling but wildly ambitious quasi-authoritarian regime.
When earnest liberals asked FIFA to bar the United States from competing or cancel the tournament, the writer argues the criticism missed the mark—not because FIFA is innocent, but because FIFA president Gianni Infantino is described as a shameless, soulless and sycophantic figure.
For all the anger and cynicism. the article also insists the World Cup is “literally too big to fail.” It cites scale: the biggest global showcase for the most popular sport. and a television and marketing enterprise many times larger than the Super Bowl. the NBA Finals or the Oscars. It adds that roughly one-third of the world’s population is likely to watch the final match on July 19.
The World Cup’s past, the piece argues, is part of the problem and part of the appeal. It says hardcore fans have long treated FIFA as a semi-criminal enterprise and the tournament as a garbage fire. but that fandom keeps returning anyway—because the history of the games includes “pure-dee showboating and athletic glamour.”.
That tension becomes sharper when the article turns to the United States. It describes the tournament in the U.S. under a second Trump administration as “tragicomic and grim,” and says that teams and supporters from majority-Muslim nations are being subjected to arbitrary and punitive scrutiny.
It then adds a specific example: a FIFA-licensed referee from Somalia with a valid visa was denied entry for no known reason. The writer calls that shameful and deeply contrary to the supposed traditions of international sport.
The argument doesn’t stop at this year. It widens into a comparison of host countries and political realities—making the case that authoritarianism and human rights abuses have often walked alongside the tournament.
Four years ago, the World Cup was held in Qatar, an autocratic hereditary monarchy where homosexual activity is illegal. The piece says stadiums and tourist venues were built by foreign laborers under a system akin to indentured servitude. It reminds readers that tournament included one of the greatest matches ever played: a thrilling 3-3 draw between Argentina and France. finally won by Argentina on penalty kicks.
Four years before that. the World Cup was in Russia. and the article notes that Vladimir Putin hadn’t officially invaded Ukraine yet—while also saying he actually had. It describes that tournament ending in a brilliant 4-2 victory for the stylish French team over Croatia’s gritty. gutty band of outsiders.
The piece goes further back. listing Argentina’s 1978 World Cup under a brutal military dictatorship that it says disappeared dissidents by the thousands. sometimes by throwing them out of helicopters into the ocean. It says the Argentine team won the trophy. while also clarifying that Diego Maradona’s “Hand of God” goal happened eight years later in Mexico.
It references the tournament’s early history too: in 1934, Italy won the second-ever World Cup at home under Benito Mussolini’s fascist dictatorship, in large part because Uruguay, the defending champions, refused to play.
It then addresses the popular comparison that has been making the rounds online—likening this year’s tournament to the 1936 Berlin Olympics under Hitler—and says the analogy won’t impress a football fan because the pattern feels obvious: an authoritarian regime using sport to sportswash its crimes. a claim the writer says “checks out.” It also adds that the 2034 World Cup will be held in Saudi Arabia. described as a sportswashing regime par excellence.
The article brings the critique back to everyday life in the U.S., especially around cost and access. It says tickets are outrageously expensive, “as if to drive home” that one-percenters will pay any price for VIP treatment—frankly, for routine treatment at these pseudo-significant events.
Picking a game at random, it says the cheapest tickets for the match between England and Ghana in Foxboro, Massachusetts, on June 20 were about $750 each, while tickets in the lower deck near midfield were about $1,250.
European visitors, the piece adds, are learning first-hand about “dreadful American public transit” and real hot weather. It argues climate-change-fueled summer heat could be a disabling health hazard for players and traveling supporters alike. It says stadiums in Dallas. Atlanta and Los Angeles are enclosed and temperature-controlled. while stadiums in Kansas City. New Jersey and Miami are not.
It adds a detail that will change how fans experience certain matches: “hydration breaks” will be introduced at roughly the 23rd and 67th minute of World Cup matches. The writer frames this as fulfilling TV networks’ desire to chop up soccer games to get in more commercials.
Even so, it insists skepticism isn’t enough to kill the tournament’s ability to spark wonder. The piece says that even in this “godawful Trumpian summer. ” millions around the world will hope to witness something magical that rises above the empty discord. It points to examples like the 2022 Argentina–France final and also the 1982 semifinal between France and West Germany that it says the writer watched with their father on Spanish-language TV. carried live without cable.
Then it lands on a specific story from the sports world, brought in through Canadian journalist Joshua Kloke. The article says that within an otherwise routine article of jocular sportswriter predictions on The Athletic, Kloke explained why he’s bringing his seven-year-old son to a match this year.
Kloke’s German-born grandparents, the piece says, instilled a deep family loyalty to Die Mannschaft, so he’s taking his kid to the June 20 match between Germany and Ivory Coast in Toronto.
It includes Kloke’s own words:
“My grown man’s eyes get wide just thinking and talking about it. I’m choosing to pierce through all the ugly noise that surrounds the tournament and remember what it’s like watching your first World Cup as a child. What a rush. Maybe something happens during the game and he’ll latch onto the sport and tournament for good. It happened to most of us once. It’s a good, and pure, feeling while it lasts. It’s too soon to spoil it for him.”.
The article uses that to pivot to the U.S. team and the hope that games can still matter beyond the noise.
It describes the 2026 U.S. men’s national team as coming with high drama and an intriguing storyline. It says the United States is playing at home and is coached by Mauricio Pochettino. described as one of the biggest names in world football. The piece notes he is a former head coach at Chelsea, Paris Saint-Germain and Tottenham Hotspur.
It says the team is, by consensus, the most talented group of male American players ever assembled, led by lightning-quick winger Christian Pulisic, described as the first Yank to approach genuine stardom in a major European professional league.
But the writer’s caution shows up quickly: even if the best-ever American team is less than truly dominant. it’s still “a notch or two above ‘bang average. ’” and the team has yet to prove it can play Pochettino’s aggressive. attacking style with consistency. It says Pulisic. while not bang-average. had a brilliant year for AC Milan in Italy—but that it was last year. and in 2026 he “virtually disappeared.”.
For the U.S. to thrive, the piece argues it can’t be the Pulisic show. It says the supporting cast of Europe-based almost-stars needs to coalesce. It names Weston McKennie of Juventus and Tyler Adams of Bournemouth. and especially highlights Folarin Balogun. described as a slinky-smooth forward who scored 18 goals for Monaco in the French Ligue 1 last season.
The article then turns to what the early schedule could mean. It says the U.S. team. on paper. should be able to beat its first two opponents—Paraguay and Australia—and slide into the knockout rounds as a favored seed. It warns that if the U.S. loses either of those games, the flag-waving will be over “real fast.”.
For tournament odds, it lays out the stark math: it says the U.S. chances of winning are mathematically indistinguishable from zero. It says reaching the round of 16 would be a fine result, and quarterfinals would be fantastic.
As for who wins. the writer says no national team from outside Europe or South America has ever hoisted the World Cup. and that won’t happen this year. It adds that if either France or Spain—the two teams described as most visibly loaded with big-name stars—doesn’t capture the prize on July 19. it would likely mean Argentina or Brazil recovered from their “self-torment and navel-gazing” and went on a spectacular run.
The final portion shifts to the early-round feel of the tournament—how much the first matches will matter when 32 of the 48 teams will move on to the knockout stages. It says the most important early task is avoiding losing. with hopes for upsets but also anticipating an “disheartening number of 0-0 and 1-1 draws.”.
It then lists best guesses on the can’t-miss matches of the first round, including:
June 12: Canada v Bosnia in Toronto—Canada is described as always fun to watch. playing at home with the go-go style favored by American coach Jesse Marsch. Bosnia is described as barely sneaking in via qualifying and likely overmatched. with Esmir Bajraktarević highlighted as a star story who was born in Appleton. Wisconsin. and played in Major League Soccer before deciding to commit his sporting future to his parents’ homeland.
June 13: Brazil v Morocco in East Rutherford. New Jersey—Brazil’s coach is described as Carlo Ancelotti. and Morocco is described as having an extreme diaspora-driven lineup with only seven of 26 players born in Morocco. The article says there’s a chance both teams play a listless draw and share orange slices. but the writer is betting pride will speak louder than caution.
June 16: France v Senegal in East Rutherford—described as a match valuing showboating elegance. It says at least 10 players on the Senegalese team are French by birth, and several French players have Senegalese roots. It frames the match as an early chance to see whether Kylian Mbappé. the world’s best player. is paying full attention this year.
June 17: England v Croatia in Arlington, Texas—positioned as a test for England’s hopes to bring the World Cup “home,” even if the writer says it’s probably not. Croatia is described as gritty and grinding with a long history of making better teams look bad.
June 21: Spain v Saudi Arabia in Atlanta—Spain is described as having the most overall talent in the tournament and barely getting tested, while Saudi Arabia is said to have a record of startling upsets. The article adds that Lamine Yamal could score five goals.
June 24: Scotland v Brazil in Miami—described as making Scottish men play outdoors in late June in Florida against Brazil. It says Scotland is led by Scott McTominay of Napoli and has outdone themselves to get this far. with a prediction that even if Brazil wins 6-1. Scotland’s goal will be remembered.
June 26: Norway v France in Foxboro—framed as a possible challenge if France has or hasn’t qualified for the second round by then. It describes Erling Haaland as a relentless goal-scoring machine and highlights the French superstar lineup’s tendency to pout and bicker when things aren’t going well.
June 27: Colombia v Portugal in Miami—the writer calls it the best single matchup on the last day of the first round. featuring Cristiano Ronaldo and James Rodríguez. described as favoring aggressive. attacking football and tending to feel that defense is for cowards. It says both teams are used to playing in the heat because the match will be relentless.
The through-line is simple: for all the costs. controversies. and scrutiny the article expects to follow the tournament into the United States. people are still buying tickets and preparing to watch. The question isn’t whether the World Cup will be messy. It’s whether, for enough moments, it can still become the kind of magic the sport is supposed to deliver.
2026 FIFA World Cup United States politics Donald Trump ICE FIFA Gianni Infantino Mexico City Estadio Azteca MetLife Stadium Mauricio Pochettino Christian Pulisic travel visas World Cup security ticket prices
World Cup again?? already tired.
So wait, they’re saying “surveillance” like it’s normal?? That’s crazy. I thought it was just soccer, not Big Brother watching everyone.
The Azteca is at like 7,300 feet right? So Mexico wins cuz the altitude is a weapon or whatever. Also I saw somewhere FIFA is always corrupt so I’m not shocked they’re coming to the U.S. to stir stuff up again. Probably more tickets getting “lost” or something.
“Pressure inside” sounds like they mean the players are mad or like a locker room thing, but then it goes into corruption and costs? Just sounds like every big event becomes a money laundering scheme and then we’re supposed to watch. If they bring that surveillance into the stadium in the U.S. then I’m out. Also Mexico being favored is obvious, South Africa will choke cuz travel is brutal, that part is just common sense.