The moral, financial and logistical issues that plagued this World Cup should be enough to disqualify the US from hosting major football tournaments until serious changes are made, argues Richard Jolly
The 27th man on the podium had a plan. Donald Trump gatecrashed the pictures of another trophy lift, lingering awkwardly as Spain celebrated their World Cup glory. There was a certain inevitability to it: Trump may have only turned up for one game in the tournament – a relief for the thousands subjected to unacceptable delays because of his unnecessary presence – but his fingerprints were all over it.
Trump was whistled and booed at the MetLife Stadium on Sunday. He nevertheless wants another World Cup final; or, more precisely, another World Cup. “I had a great idea for Gianni [Infantino],” he said. “Announce us again next time. We will be requesting it again immediately.”
Which rather ignores the fact that the next two tournaments are already allocated, neither to the United States. But why let such details get in the way of a half-baked brainwave? Trump had already said, too, that there would be a difference. “This time we would leave Canada and Mexico out,” he stated on Friday. Although if Canada does become the 51st state, perhaps that would change. Given his expansionist schemes, maybe games would also be played in the Trump Dome in Greenland, paid for by a crypto billionaire.
But if the reality is that the earliest the US could host another men’s World Cup is 2038, they will stage the women’s tournament in 2031, along with Mexico, Jamaica and Costa Rica. There are suggestions Infantino wants the 2029 Club World Cup to be held in the United States.
There are reasons why none of them should be; not without significant changes in the country. They broadly fall under three categories: the moral, the financial and the logistical.
As Russia and Qatar recognised, hosting World Cups gives legitimacy to dubious regimes. Yet neither of them did so in a year when they were at war with another country in the tournament. The American attack on a school in Iran, resulting in 168 people, mainly children, dying might constitute a war crime.
Even when sticking to football, the Iranian team was treated unfairly when it came to issues as basic as entering and leaving the US. “A disaster World Cup,” their striker Mehdi Taremi called it. Given the fondness for conflict of a president laughably given an invented Fifa peace prize, other countries could be forgiven for wondering if it is them next.
There is a sporting element to the immorality, too. When Folarin Balogun’s suspension was lifted so the United States forward could face Belgium – entirely coincidentally, after Trump phoned Infantino – it represented one of the lowest points in Fifa’s history: governmental interference and political pressure, rather than sporting merit, meant the supposed principles of fair play were abandoned.
After it succeeded – in rendering Balogun eligible, though not in the scoreline as the US were walloped 4-1 – it would probably only empower Trump to try something similar again.
There is a further aspect. The Trump administration’s values are the polar opposite of those the World Cup ought to offer, of diversity and inclusiveness, a language that “unites people” and turns “strangers into friends”, as Tom Cruise said in his bizarre speech before the World Cup final.
As many a visitor can testify after the last six weeks, the vast majority of Americans are friendly and helpful; yet 77 million voted for this monstrosity of a government. Giving them major international sporting events rewards them when the actions of the United States, from tariffs to the war in Iran, have made much of the rest of the world poorer.
There are other financial elements to overlook the US and not merely because the World Cup has probably bolstered a flailing tourist industry, buffeted as millions of foreigners have been repelled from visiting Trump’s United States; it would have had a greater benefit had the US administration actually let more football fans enter the country.
Fifa can trumpet that this has been the most lucrative World Cup ever, aided by more teams (48) and games (104). It has also been the greediest, using the American market to ramp up ticket prices. That has been compounded by the Trump administration and American corporate culture, all looking at football fans and seeing dollar signs as costs got extortionate. A memory is of being a mile or two from the stadium in Foxborough and seeing car-parking spots in yards being advertised for $150 and then $200; that rip-off culture needs to be addressed, not encouraged.
The logistical element relates to the sheer size of the United States; perhaps not as big as Trump would like, but still huge. Some of this tournament would inevitably have been impractical and expensive. It was compounded by bad choices and decision-making which illustrated the US authorities and Fifa, once again, put the fans last; the lack of organisation in many venues was damning.
The choice of them, and the schedule, showed a lack of consideration. Germany played three group games in Houston, Toronto and New York. Austria went from San Francisco to Dallas to Kansas City. Too few host cities were near each other.
Too few grounds were actually in the cities. Many of the stadia impressed; the locations did not. The aversion to public transport in swathes of the United States rendered some still more unsuitable. Boston was a perfect host city in every respect bar one: the ground was nowhere near Boston...
Priority should have been given to accessible stadia. There were arguably only three near enough to city centres in the United States in this World Cup: Seattle, Atlanta and Philadelphia (Toronto was a Canadian example that worked well).
Chicago opted out in part due to Fifa’s demands; yet Fifa should be looking for the right places, not just the most profitable. With Soldier Field’s central location and Chicago’s rapid-transit system, it would have been a far better Midwestern base than Kansas City, which lacked the infrastructure required.
Fifa may be too arrogant to learn, but it could do worse than study Euro 2024, a tournament with a better ethos and feel, built on the right principles. It was imperfect at times, but the German S-Bahn and U-Bahns worked well in cities such as Berlin and Hamburg. American car culture is far from ideal for such tournaments.
Do Fifa care? Almost certainly not. Perhaps confirmation was not needed that they have lost touch with the game’s roots or its rank and file. It came anyway, partly with every indication they were Americanising the game.
A lesson should be that there are no hydration breaks unless temperatures soar, no half-time shows, no tickets for celebrities that could have gone to genuine fans. And no tournaments in the United States in the foreseeable future; not as things are, anyway.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments
Bookmark popover
Removed from bookmarks
Facts Only
* Richard Jolly argues the US should not host another tournament following the World Cup debacle.
* Donald Trump expressed a desire for another World Cup, mentioning an idea regarding Gianni Infantino.
* The US had previously stated there would be a difference, suggesting leaving Canada and Mexico out of the next event.
* The earliest the US could host another men's World Cup is 2038.
* The US would stage the women's tournament in 2031, alongside Mexico, Jamaica, and Costa Rica.
* There are suggestions that the 2029 Club World Cup could be held in the United States.
* Hosting World Cups grants legitimacy to regimes like Russia and Qatar.
* An American attack on a school in Iran resulted in deaths of 168 people, mainly children.
* The suspension of Folarin Balogun was lifted after a phone call from Trump to Infantino.
* The piece discusses financial elements related to tourism and ticket pricing markup in the U.S. market.
* Logistical issues include poor scheduling where Germany played group games in Houston, Toronto, and New York.
* Host city choices lacked proximity and public transport accessibility for some venues.
Executive Summary
Richard Jolly argues that the moral, financial, and logistical issues surrounding the World Cup should disqualify the United States from hosting major football tournaments until significant changes are implemented. The piece details arguments against U.S. hosting across these three categories. Morally, the text points to the legitimacy bestowed by hosting World Cups for regimes like Russia and Qatar, referencing actions such as the U.S. attack on a school in Iran, suggesting that hosts should face accountability. Sporting immorality is cited through instances of perceived governmental interference, such as when Folarin Balogun's suspension was lifted following contact with the Trump administration, which is framed as prioritizing political pressure over sporting merit.
Financially, the piece suggests that hosting the tournament did not benefit American football fans, given that U.S. actions regarding tariffs and the war in Iran made other parts of the world poorer. Furthermore, the commercial aspects are criticized, noting the lucrativeness of the event was compounded by a culture that encouraged excessive pricing for tickets, which must be addressed. Logistically, the sheer size of the United States presented impracticalities; poor scheduling, the lack of proximate host cities, and inadequate infrastructure choices were highlighted, suggesting that public transport accessibility and venue location should have been prioritized over pure profitability.
Full Take
The narrative constructs a case against hosting by linking geopolitical actions directly to sporting integrity, creating a layered critique that moves from specific incidents to systemic failures. The core pattern observed is the weaponization of shared cultural events—the World Cup—as a platform to ignore broader moral and logistical realities in favor of political or financial gain. This framing employs an appeal to the audience's sense of fairness, suggesting that rewards for geopolitical misdeeds are acceptable if framed through the lens of manufactured 'peace.'
A significant tension exists between the external perception of American goodwill (friendliness of visitors) and the internal reality of domestic policy outcomes, which the piece posits are contradictory. This discrepancy reflects a fundamental lack of cognitive sovereignty: an acknowledgment that participatory systems are often divorced from ethical substance. The evolution of the argument moves from personal grievances (the player suspension) to macro-level issues (regime legitimacy) and finally to systemic failures (infrastructure and economics).
The underlying pattern is the assumption that shared spectacle inherently validates the host’s actions, regardless of those actions' ethical cost. The implication for human agency is that if major global events are structured around interests benefiting a dominant power, then challenging the host based on externalities becomes an act of resistance against imposed structures. The question remains: if adherence to principles of fair play is contingent upon political compliance from the host nation, what framework can independently adjudicate legitimate governance versus sporting legitimacy?
Sentinel — Human
The text presents a strongly opinionated argument built upon specific historical and logistical critiques regarding the US hosting of major football tournaments, demonstrating a clear authorial voice.