The FIFA 2026 World Cup is scheduled to be staged across the United States, Mexico, and Canada, but growing political concerns have reignited debate over whether the US should remain a host.
With just 146 days remaining until kick-off, questions are being raised not about the format or the teams—but about the venue itself.
Under the current plan, the United States will host 78 of the tournament’s 104 matches across 11 cities: Atlanta, Boston, Dallas, Houston, Kansas City, Los Angeles, Miami, New York/New Jersey, Philadelphia, Seattle, and San Francisco. The final is set for July 19 at MetLife Stadium in New Jersey.
Yet the political climate surrounding President Donald Trump has prompted calls for FIFA to reconsider that decision.
FIFA and the 2026 World Cup: A Hosting Decision Under Scrutiny
Concerns over US foreign policy have intensified in recent weeks following reported military actions involving Venezuela and Nigeria, alongside suggestions of potential operations linked to Greenland, Mexico, Colombia, and Iran.
According to the BBC, these developments led 23 UK politicians from four parties—Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the Green Party, and Plaid Cymru—to sign a parliamentary motion urging international sporting bodies to consider excluding the United States from major global events, including the World Cup.
The motion argued that major tournaments “should not be used to legitimise or normalise violations of international law by powerful states.”
Immigration policy has added further fuel to the debate. In June 2025, President Trump announced new travel and visa restrictions aimed at what he described as protecting Americans from “dangerous foreign actors.” Citizens from 19 countries were either banned or heavily restricted from entering the US—among them Haiti and Iran, both of which have since qualified for the 2026 World Cup.
On January 14, the Trump administration also announced an indefinite suspension of immigrant visa processing for citizens of 75 countries, a measure set to take effect on January 21, according to The Guardian.
UK emerges as a potential alternative host
The controversy has drawn sharp reactions within the football world. Former Sky Sports presenter Jeff Stelling publicly questioned FIFA’s stance, responding on X to claims that allowing the US to host the tournament was “irresponsible.”
Stelling agreed, suggesting FIFA should explore alternatives, adding that the United Kingdom would be a realistic option.
The UK has not hosted a men’s World Cup since 1966, when England defeated West Germany 4–2 at Wembley.
However, the country staged Euro 1996 and hosted several matches at Euro 2020, including the final. The UK and the Republic of Ireland are also set to host Euro 2028.
Historically, Colombia remains the only nation to have been awarded a World Cup and later relinquished hosting duties.
The country withdrew voluntarily from the 1986 tournament due to economic difficulties, after which hosting rights were transferred to Mexico.
As the countdown to 2026 continues, FIFA faces increasing pressure to decide whether football’s biggest stage can truly remain separate from global politics—or whether the venue itself must change.
