Back in 2002, the FIFA Men’s World Cup was organized for the first time by two countries: Japan and South Korea.
Joao Havelange was the leader of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) and he intended to universalize football all over the world. In the bid, in 1996, three countries offered to host the tournament: Mexico, South Korea and Japan. Since Mexico had already host it twice it was preferred an Asian country.
And then, politics prevailed: Havelange favored Japan and the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA)’s leader, Lennart Johansson, a rival of Havelange, supported Soth Korea. Both UEFA and the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) considered co-hosting was the best option. No Asian country had hosted a World Cup. Japan and South Korea disagreed due to historic rivalries such as the atrocities perpetrated by the Japanese Empire during WWII plus regional tensions for economic, cultural and political reasons.
Thus, at some point Seoul and Tokyo realized either they agreed on the shared tournament or no tournament would be held at all. For this and other considerations, the development of the 2002 World Cup was difficult, and several controversies surfaced before, during and after the tournament. First the venues posed challenges to fans that would travel between two countries. Then came the infrastructure issue, since both countries would need to satisfy the requirements for a World Cup. Also, the Europeans complained that matches would be taking place during mornings -due to the time difference-, when they would be at work.
Once the tournament started, South Korea did well and was able to finish 4th, whereas Japan succumbed at the quarter finals. There were claims that somehow South Korea got help to get there. During a decisive match against Itay, there was the feeling that the Ecuadorian arbiter Byron Moreno did not punish the South Korean fouls suggesting manipulation to keep the hosting nation in the tournament was the reason. Then came the match between South Korea and Spain, won by the Asian country and again, the European press was furious. This is why once the 2002 came to an end with Brazil winning its fifth championship, many believed FIFA would never favor a joint tournament again, and in fact, FIFA banned it. By the way: did the 2002 World Cup favored reconciliation and friendship relations between Japan and South Korea? Well, apparently no.
Having that in mind, one may want to look at the bid for the 2026 World Cup. In 2018, during the bidding process held in Moscow, Donald Trump stood for the US as the host by arguing the World Cup would be part of the 250 Anniversary of the United States Declaration of Independence -which together with the Los Angeles Olympics in 2028 he conceives as part of his legacy. Mexico again offered to host the World Cup and then Canada also stepped in. And thus, for the first time in FIFA’s history, three countries will be the tournament organizers.
In favor of this trinational venue it should be remembered that the US has already host a World Cup back in 1994, whereas Mexico did it in 1970 and 1986. Canada hosted the Women's World Cup in 2015. Neither of the “three amigos” has ever won a World Cup. Nevertheless, Mexico has always been in a Soccer mood more so than its Northern neighbors, since the sport is one of the most popular in the country. For Canadians is Hockey, whilst the US loves mostly the Super Bowl, Baseball and Basketball. Yet Soccer, as Henry Kissinger very well understood -and he was very fond of it-, means big business and it is not only a cultural phenomenon but mostly a political instrument. Sports can lead to reconciliation, to conflict, to disagreements and also to foster admiration and to produce a positive image of a country to the eyes of world audiences. It is soft power at its best -and very often serves hard power.
The 2026 World Cup will start on June 11, and the final match will be on July 19. This time there will be 48 national teams participating. 16 cities will host the tournament of which 10 are in the US, and three in Mexico and Canada each. This is to say that 85 percent of the matches will take place in the United States, which imply several challenges to FIFA. One of the reasons to host the tournament in North America is that infrastructure is already there, contrary to other venues when stadiums needed to be built. But still modernization oof stadiums is under way. Also, distances between the venues are an issue.
As witnessed during the FIFA Club World Cup held in the US between June 14 and July 13, 2025, the stadiums did not attract the expected Soccer fans. Even at the final match, where Chelsea defeated PSG with Donald Trump delivering a speech and the Cup, the MetLife Stadium in New Jersey was not at its full capacity. Many consider the migration policies of the Trump Administration together with ICE massive deportations prevented fans from going to the stadiums. Also, the timing of the Club World Cup was probably not the best, since the Confederation of North, Central America and Caribbean Association Football (CONCACAF) held its Gold Cup also in the US from June 14 to July 6, although most matches were played at the West Coast, contrary to the Club World Cup, scheduled at the East Coast. Mexico won the Gold Cup, and the national team has a large number of followers in the US, thus, despite ICE’s threats many fans were present at the matches mostly at those where the Mexican national team participated. But again, migration policies are a real challenge for a successful World Cup next year.
A World Cup with 48 National teams puts a lot of pressure on FIFA since many fans from different corners of the world would like to travel to the venues and visa requirements are rigorous, especially by US authorities. One may have expected that because since 2018 it was already known that Mexico, the US and Canada would be hosting the 2026 World Cup, some arrangements may have led to coordination on migration issues. But migration under the Trump administration is under fire.
Then comes the dialogue between Mexico, the US and Canada to guarantee the best possible outcome of the tournament at the very same year that the fate of the USMCA will be decided. Yet it was as recently as December 6, during the World Cup Draw that Mexico’s Claudia Sheinbaum and US’ Donald Trump finally met for the first time. Even though Canada’s Mark Carney has had several encounters with Mexico’s Sheinbaum, disagreements on several issues have prevented them from joining forces to counterbalance the pressures coming from Trump. Tensions between Mexico and Canada include visas and the participation of mining companies, involved in several environmental and human rights scandals. This prevents Mexico and Canada from working together to face Trump’s tariffs and even the threat of ending the USMCA. Trump has implied the replacement of USMCA with bilateral agreements, one with Mexico and the other with Canada.
It is fair to say that relations between the three countries are at their lowest level, with Trump claiming Canada should spend more on defense, and suggesting several times that the best way to avoid tariffs is by becoming the 51st state of the US. Trump went even as far as “ending” its trade relations with Canada, or so he said as retaliation due to an advertisement released last October by the government of Canada’s Ontario province – which the premier later said he planned to pull – that featured audio from a speech by former US President Ronald Reagan criticizing tariffs on foreign goods. To many Canadians, Trump is insulting the country, and for this reason they are boycotting American goods, and refusing to travel to the US. With Mexico Trump has exacerbated tensions, besides the USMCA, on migration, border, security and now international waters issues.
One may wonder whether the 2026 World Cup could ease tensions and create a more cooperative environment for the so-called “three amigos.” But Gianni Infantino, the FIFA’s boss has fallen for Trump with whom he is very often seen. Infantino even awarded Trump the “FIFA Peace Prize-Football Unites the World”, a distinction just created -that will be deliver every year from now on- and received with skepticism by many inside and outside the Soccer world. Yet Infantino is not seen that often in the company of Mark Carney neither in Claudia Sheinbaum.
FIFA has its own problems too. Back in 2015 a major corruption scandal erupted when an investigation against prominent officials of the football organization was conducted by the US Department of Justice. In fact, fourteen people were indicted in connection with an investigation by the FBI and the revenue service or IRS who were charged with wire fraud, racketeering, and money laundering among other felonies. Then the FIFA boss, Sepp Blather, stepped aside and was replaced by Infantino, whose credibility has also been questioned, although he has been able to keep his reputation more or less intact. Yet, apart from Trump, Infantino is often seen in the company of Saudi Arabia crown prince Mohammed bin Salman. He seems to be comfortable by establishing political relations with powerful leaders. But at FIFA many question his interest in personal connections, and many wonder whether this benefits Soccer at all.
The World Cups of Russia in 2018 and Qatar in 2022 were under heavy criticism, since it has been suggested that they were granted to the two countries due to bribery. Thus, for Infantino it has been very important to clear FIFA’s -and his own- name and have a World Cup far from corruption accusations and -why not- closer to powerful world leaders.
Of course, the three North American countries need the 2026 World Cup to succeed. They could use it as a diplomatic tool to approach each other with a cooperative mood during the USMCA review process but it is not clear if this in fact will happen. Part of the problem is that cultural diplomacy requires political will and thus, one may wonder what is that Mexico, the US and Canada expect from the Soccer tournament. Mexico may want to improve its Branding as a country and distance itself from the perception of crime and violence that make headlines all over the world. It is the only country hosting the World Cup three times and that is remarkable achievement. Still there is a lot of work to do, not only in infrastructure and modernizations of the venues but also when it comes to the President herself who has announced she will not be present during the opening ceremony of the World Cup. This is not good politics. Instead, Trump is using the tournament to improve his image as a world leader and a peace maker. At this point it seems as if the US is the only host since FIFA has largely ignored Mexico and Canada. This is why it is time for Mexico and Canada to step in if not together, well, at least individually.
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
