The first trinational FIFA World Cup ever starts next June 11 in Mexico City at the emblematic Estadio Azteca, now renamed Estadio Banorte. Before the opening whistle of the match between the national teams of Mexico and South Africa -again, since they also played the opening match back at the World Cup in South Africa in 2010- there are controversies, misunderstandings, infrastructure renovations not yet met, political pressures, a very conflicting environment in the world and a large etcetera that serve as the context for a, hopefully, entertaining tournament that may not solve the world’s problems but still may thrill audiences.
Despite being organized by three countries, most of the matches and the attention has been kidnapped by the Donald Trump administration. Perhaps FIFA has accepted the United States dominance of the tournament as a result of the 2015 corruption scandals when US authorities documented allegations of racketeering, wire fraud and money laundering conspiracies spanning 24 years. FIFA authorities are accused of breeding decades of "rampant, systemic and deep-rooted" corruption. In fact, Gianni Infantino also has some skeletons in the closet but has been able to navigate turbulent waters and has taken advantage of his close relationship with Donald Trump to erase - or, say, “manage”- past sins.
That said, the election of Mexico, the US and Canada took into consideration that the three countries have football infrastructure -contrary to previous World Cups where tens of stadiums were built and today, like in South Africa and Brazil are either abandoned or can be rented for weddings -not kidding. The costs associated with the hosting of a World Cup have been widely debated, since, despite tourism and immediate benefits for hotels, restaurants and tourist attractions, several countries have contracted tremendous debts that are still in the process of being paid.
The FIFA World Cup trophy. (Photo credit: Britannica)
Thus, Mexico, with two previous world cups on its CV and the US with one, were ideal for a shared tournament together with Canada, that has hosted a Women’s World Cup too. The three countries have stadiums already in place where national/regional tournaments have been played. Yet, the fact that the US will have 78 matches, against 13 for Mexico and 13 for Canada, has been highly criticized. Take Canada’s Women FIFA World Cup as an example: back in 2015: matches were played across six cities: Vancouver, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Ottawa, Montreal, and Moncton. When Mexico hosted the 1986 World Cup matches took place in nine cities: Mexico City -with both the Estadio Azteca and the Estadio Olímpico Universitario as venues-, Guadalajara, Monterrey, Puebla, Toluca, León, Querétaro, Irapuato, and Nezahualcóyotl. It is true some of these venues have deteriorated as time went by due to the situation of the respective national leagues: some teams have simply disappeared and with them, the stadiums that used to hold matches have deteriorated or downgraded. That said, the justification of the American authorities for the concentration of most matches, among other arguments, is that the 2026 World Cup is part of the 250 Anniversary of the American Revolution of Independence -which together with Los Angeles Olympic Games of July 2028 constitute the sports legacy of Donald Trump.
The cities in Mexico that will be holding matches are under heavy scrutiny due to security concerns, health problems -such as the resurgence of measles, or the cases of counterfeit liquor that has already set some alerts in the UK-, transportation challenges, the hurricane and rainy season -which anticipates major traffic problems specially in Mexico City-, last minute renovations at airports and such. But Mexico is not the only country with these challenges. Canada's 2026 World Cup venues—Toronto Stadium (BMO Field) and BC Place in Vancouver—have faced major infrastructure challenges, notably stadium capacity constraints, costly FIFA-mandated temporary upgrades, and strained public transportation networks. Additionally, these logistical burdens led cities like Montreal to withdraw entirely from the hosting process, which is very bad, considering the attractiveness of the Quebecois city.
In Toronto there is a saying that states that the city has two seasons: winter and construction. The later has captured a lot of attention because the BMO field, one of the event's two Canadian venues sits just off the Gardiner Expressway, one of Toronto’s major arteries normally crowded. Yet, the major concern is FIFA’s adequations regarding the stadium: the temporary stands that were constructed to accommodate a massive leap in attendance swell from the ground. BMO has a normal capacity of just over 28,000 and will increase to 45,736 seats. The construction really looks ugly, to say the least. But many believe it looks fragile and may collapse. Let’s not hope so!
María Cristina Rosas, a professor and researcher in the faculty of political and social sciences at the National Autonomous University of Mexico in Mexico City.
The US also has faced problems: the primary infrastructure challenges for US stadiums in the 2026 World Cup center around retrofitting NFL-focused venues for soccer. Key issues include installing natural grass over artificial turf, modifying seating to fit a regulation pitch, meeting strict transportation and pedestrian demands, and addressing critical security funding gaps. The United States’ infrastructure leaves much to be desired, to say the least. The country spent years campaigning for the right to host the world’s most-watched sporting event, promising FIFA that it was ready. And with an expected 5 million visitors leaving their home countries—complete with high-speed rail, free or low-cost reliable transportation, and livable yet unplanned walkable cities—to attend the World Cup American host cities are scrambling to sustain that increased demand on their cities and believe maybe is too late to change everything but at least hope this may act as a wake-up call about how making cities more sustainable and livable.
Last February, US government officials warned that there could be "catastrophic" security consequences if cities hosting World Cup matches do not receive funding that has been frozen. Almost $900m designated for the 11 host cities in the US has not been received amid a partial federal government shutdown. Taking into consideration that major sport events are potential targets for terrorist activities, this is of concern. The US is involved in a major war in the Middle East and this, together with the wide-extended feeling that its alliance with Israel has gone too far, have angered many.
A topic not so much in the media these days is the environmental impact of the 2026 World Cup on the three countries. A recent report indicates the tournament may become the most polluted World Cup ever, because it will have more teams, more matches, more visitors and thus, more emissions. The figures are astonishing: since the World Cup will be played in 16 cities spread across the North American region separated by thousands of kilometers, this will mean that teams, journalists and millions of fans will depend almost entirely on planes. In fact, the report estimates that air travel – the heaviest producer of transport pollution- will generate more than 7. 7 million tonnes of CO₂. Unlike Europe or Asia, North America does not have extensive high-speed rail networks that would help cut the carbon footprint of transport. This is bad news for the environmental crisis the world is facing.
Last but not least, considering the joint World Cup, cooperation between Mexico, the US, and Canada has increased in specific operational areas like security, infrastructure coordination, and cross-border information sharing, although there are major differences between the hosting countries. Both Mexico and Canada have provided heavy federal-level funding and tax exemptions for their host cities. In contrast, American host cities have largely been left to fund their respective portions of the tournament through local fundraising and commercial sponsorships. Also even though the World Cup is intended as a symbol of North American unity, friendship and dialogue, the broader political relationship has remained strained due to ongoing USMCA trade disputes and tariff negotiations besides threats of Donald Trump against Canada and Mexico on issues with sovereignty concern.
That said, let’s hope the 2026 FIFA World Cup is a success and that most fatidic predictions over the concerns mentioned above end up being only pessimistic views.
Editor’s Note: The above guest column was penned by María Cristina Rosas, a professor and researcher in the faculty of political and social sciences at the National Autonomous University of Mexico in Mexico City. The column appears in The Rio Grande Guardian International News Service with the permission of the author. Rosas can be reached via email at: mcrosas@prodigy.net.mx
