When the Concacaf (the Confederation of North, Central America and Caribbean Association Football) President Victor Montagliani stated at a Conference last year that “With all due respect to current world leaders, football is bigger than them, football will survive their regime and their government and their slogans” it brought into clear focus the power of sport, and football in particular, in our modern society.
With the USA co-hosting the World Cup this summer, the issue of sport mixing with politics is particularly poignant, with a controversial figure in the White House being thrust front and centre into the football (or soccer) world.
A recent article in The Guardian by Alexander Abnos made the argument that the US should be removed from hosting the tournament. His reasons were event-related (including exorbitant ticket prices), but mainly politics-related. He referenced the ICE actions in Minneapolis; the kidnapping of the Venezuelan President; and the syphoning off of public money to ensure host cities were ready.
Despite the passion of Abnos’ plea to remove the US as co-host, it isn’t realistic. There have been rumours of some countries boycotting the Cup and that if enough countries took that path it may force Fifa’s hand. But, despite many misgivings that countries may have about the US administration’s actions, a boycott is highly unlikely.
Holding global sporting events in autocratic, controversial countries is not new. The 1936 Berlin Olympics were held during the rise of the Nazi Party and were used by Hitler to promote a peaceful image of Germany, masking its darker side. Fifa’s World Cup in 2018 was hosted by Russia, just four years after Russia’s ‘annexation’ of Crimea. The 2022 Winter Olympics held in China faced a diplomatic boycott due to alleged human rights abuses.
So, the controversy generated by the selection of host countries for sporting events is not new. What has changed is the financial, and thus political, power that sport has in the World. There appears to be a feeling at the highest level of football governance, intimated by Victor Montagliani, that no matter which government FIFA works with and allies with, the sport itself will emerge unscathed. This gives FIFA, in some people’s eyes, an unprecedented responsibility when selecting future venues. But the counter argument is that FIFA can effectively do what it likes and remain as powerful and influential as ever.
It’s not for a humble lawyer to pontificate on global politics, but as a sports fan it is concerning that the apparent constant striving for financial gain may result in sport being used, knowingly, to legitimise political actions. Sport has always been used by political leaders to help support their governments, and it can be used for good to help develop nations and resources. But the current power and influence of football is unprecedented, which in turn raises the stakes when governing bodies make decisions that will have political impacts. If the leaders of those governing bodies are of the mind that whatever decisions they make, their positions and the strength of their organisation will not be jeopardised, it puts sports politics into a whole different situation, with potentially serious implications.
Contact our Sports Law Solicitors
David Little is a Partner at Bishop & Sewell in our expert Sports Law and Corporate & Commercial
If you would like to contact him, please call on either 07968 027343 or 020 7631 4141 or email: company@
The above is accurate as at 10 February 2026.
The information above may be subject to change. The content of this note should not be considered legal advice, and each matter should be considered on a case-by-case basis.
