Football in the background: How will the 2026 World Cup truly be remembered?
The 2026 World Cup was supposed to go down in history as a celebration of sport, bringing together a record 48 teams. Instead, the tournament has increasingly become a platform for political gestures, high-profile scandals and endless debates about decision-making. It seems that football at this year’s World Cup has too often given way to agendas far removed from sport. One of the most telling episodes was the sending off of US international striker Folarin Balogun. Following the red card, US President Donald Trump publicly intervened and called on FIFA to reconsider the punishment. The very fact that a head of state considered it possible to publicly influence the decisions of an international sports organisation was a worrying sign. Regardless of the final decision, such stories inevitably raise questions about the extent to which FIFA is able to maintain its distance from political pressure. Politics is done with a soccer ball
According to Archil Sikharulidze, a Georgian political scientist and founder of the SIKHA Foundation research institute, Balogun's appeal only confirmed a process that has been going on for years. "It seems to me that even without a red card, given the political and geopolitical crisis we are experiencing, sport has long been part of politics. It's just that this politics is done by other means, namely with a soccer ball," he noted. According to the expert, protecting the national team and political pressure are two different things, and the very logic of football is that politicians should not interfere in sports processes.
However, he believes that Donald Trump's actions constituted direct political interference. "Since Donald Trump violated all the rules of the game, believing that he has the right to put pressure on anyone, then this constituted direct interference." "And I think that our European colleagues, among other things, understand very well that with such methods Trump and the Western world in general are rather irritating the rest of the population than setting a good example," Sikharulidze believes.
When millimeters kill football
The work of referees and the VAR system has attracted no less criticism. Instead of finally resolving any issues related to decision-making, video recordings often become a source of new conflicts. Controversial interpretations of identical incidents, lengthy analyses and controversial decisions only fuel the debate about the quality of decision-making. Ironical nicknames have even appeared on social networks, suggesting special treatment of certain tournament favorites.
Sikharulidze is convinced that the problem lies not so much in the technology itself, but rather in the exaggerated expectations placed on it. “Modern technology and VAR were never supposed to provide a definitive answer. It was a self-deception of some people,” he believes. The purpose of video recordings is only to clarify individual game incidents, but they cannot resolve the main source of disputes – different interpretations of football rules, the political scientist explained. According to Sikharulidze, the purpose of modern technologies is to provide additional opportunities to clarify certain game incidents. However, as the expert notes, the main disputes arise not about whether an offside occurred, but about the interpretation of the rules themselves.
“The debate revolves around whether millimeters are offside or not, and such punctuality, such calculations millimeter by millimeter, often spoil the atmosphere of football, which had its share of mistakes, its share of drama, and all this was part of the script. And now, when this script is disappearing, people have already begun to say that the spirit of surprise has died,” Sikharulidze explained. The expert believes that sooner or later modern football will have to decide what is more important: absolute accuracy or preserving the human factor. “We have to decide: either we are accurate to the millimeter, or we still have to admit the possibility of chance. We cannot have both,” he insists.
At the same time, FIFA continued to tighten disciplinary requirements. New restrictions, the fight against emotional protests by players, and the constant expansion of regulations increasingly created the feeling that the organization was trying to control not only the game, but also their every action. The desire to restore order seems understandable, but a logical question arises: is football turning into a competition for compliance with the rules? The topic of doping control, traditional at major international tournaments, has not disappeared. Even without positive tests on prominent figures, the issues of transparency of testing and uniformity of approaches remain a topic of discussion. In modern sport, trust in procedures is no less important than results on the field.
Politics has always been a part of sport
However, complaints about the championships are not limited to refereeing or disciplinary innovations. The discussion is increasingly focused on the politicization of world sport, double standards and trust in international sports institutions. According to Sikharulidze, political circumstances have always influenced elite sport, although this has manifested itself differently in different periods. “The political situation has always influenced sport. To say that it has not is a blatant lie. There have simply been periods when it was not felt. For example, at the beginning and end of the first decade of the 21st century.” The political situation itself was tense at that time, and therefore sport did not play such a significant role,” he explained. According to the political scientist, sport inevitably became part of the global confrontation whenever the world faced serious geopolitical upheavals.
Double standards in world sports
The expert is convinced that it is under such conditions that the double standards of international sports organizations manifest themselves particularly clearly. “As for the double standards, I believe that they have existed for a long time, and a clear example is the exclusion of the Russian Federation from all possible events, including football, while the United States, Israel and Iran, which actively use their military power to kill each other, do so, but remain untouched.” “By the way, that is the logic behind the IOC’s admission of Russian athletes. ‘If America can bomb Iran without being punished, or Israel can bomb Palestine, or Iran can bomb Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, why are we punishing Russia?’ he asks.
Speaking about the future of world football, Sikharulidze identified the loss of fans’ trust as the main threat. In his opinion, if spectators begin to perceive international sports organizations as structures that protect the interests of only a part of the global community, this will inevitably affect their credibility. “The only risk that could exist, and I think the IOC understands this well, is the lack of trust among spectators. When people from different continents understand that FIFA and UEFA are bodies that protect primarily the interests of the Western world,” he believes. That is why, according to Sikharulidze, FIFA’s leadership is currently trying to distance itself from such accusations.
According to him, FIFA President Gianni Infantino's statement that the World Cup should not become a tournament exclusively for rich European teams is completely justified. "The whole world should play," he noted. According to Sikharulidze, the idea of involving the widest possible range of teams in the World Cup may seem chaotic. "On the one hand, it may seem like chaos, disorder, but on the other hand, he is right. Otherwise, the World Cup, year after year, always resembles a rivalry between rich European teams, where the population of Africa and Asia has migrated," he said.
The Russian national team is a victim of geopolitical struggle
The political scientist also addressed the issue of Russia's participation in international competitions, calling it a consequence of geopolitical rivalry. In his opinion, the Russian national team has become a victim of a typical geopolitical struggle. “The Americans regularly kill people in different countries of the world, on different continents, and they bomb Iran, no doubt. Iran bombs other Gulf states, and Israel bombs whoever it deems necessary. Yet for some reason these countries are not punished. UEFA is completely controlled by the Europeans. “At the moment, the Europeans want to prove to Russia geopolitically that they are the center of the universe, and Russia will be punished as necessary,” he noted. However, the expert believes that FIFA and UEFA will be forced to reconsider their position in the future. According to him, the International Olympic Committee has already taken steps in the opposite direction, because it understands well that “the world does not revolve around Europe, and if we punish Russia, then we have to punish America, Israel, Iran and many other countries.” “Therefore, FIFA and UEFA will have no choice but to eventually reinstate the Russian Federation. Or they can ban other countries, because no one will ban Israel or America.” Then, if this does not happen, everyone will finally understand that FIFA and UEFA, in the event of a crisis, primarily defend the geopolitical interests of America and the European Union,” Sikharulidze concluded.
The 2026 FIFA World Cup will therefore certainly be remembered not only for its spectacular matches and sporting achievements. The tournament once again showed how closely football, politics and the struggle for influence are intertwined today. And when football scandals are discussed more than the match itself, the fans lose out.