World Cup 2026 At Risk: Trump’s Threats and Infantino’s Warning to Host Cities
- Isaac
- Nov 19, 2025
- 3 min read
As the 2026 FIFA World Cup approaches, geopolitical tensions are creeping into the heart of what was supposed to be a purely sporting spectacle. U.S. President Donald Trump has publicly threatened to move matches away from host cities he claims are unsafe—specifically naming Seattle, Boston, and San Francisco—citing concerns over crime and local governance. These statements have thrust FIFA President Gianni Infantino into a politically charged spotlight, forcing the global football body to navigate a delicate balance between safety, contracts, and optics.
Why the Threats Are Raising Eyebrows
Trump’s threats are rooted in his broader political agenda, accusing liberal-led cities of mismanagement and declaring that if safety standards are not met, he could “call Gianni” Infantino to reassign matches.
Infantino, who has maintained a publicly cooperative relationship with Trump, also emphasized that
“Safety and security is the number one priority.”
On the other side,
"FIFA insists that safety decisions for host cities are ultimately the responsibility of national and local governments", adding that it expects all 16 host cities to meet security requirements
FIFA Vice President Victor Montagliani reiterated this, emphasizing that
“football is bigger than them and football will survive … government slogans.”
Host Cities in the Crosshairs
Boston: Trump specifically criticized Boston Mayor Michelle Wu, calling her “radical left” and questioning her management.
Mayor Wu fired back, asserting that the city’s World Cup games are locked in by contract and that no single person can simply remove them.
Seattle: A mayor elected with progressive backing has become part of Trump’s criticism. Trump called her “very, very liberal-slash-communist” and suggested he’d ask Infantino to rethink matches in the city.
San Francisco / Los Angeles: Both cities have also been named in Trump’s rhetoric about low safety or mismanagement.
What’s Really at Stake
This isn’t just talk. If matches were to be reassigned:
Logistical Chaos > Moving World Cup games at this late stage could wreak havoc on stadium bookings, travel plans, and infrastructure readiness.
Financial Impact > Local economies were banking on the influx of fans. Losing games would mean losing revenue for hotels, restaurants, and city budgets.
Reputational Risk > For FIFA, giving in to political pressure could damage its image of impartiality. For the cities targeted, it could feel like a rebuke of their political culture.
Diplomatic Tensions > The move would further blend geopolitics and global sport. How FIFA handles this could set a precedent for future tournaments.
FIFA’s Dilemma
Infantino’s relationship with Trump has drawn scrutiny. Some see their alignment as pragmatic, others as dangerously political.
But even if Trump’s demands are high, FIFA holds the cards: host city contracts were signed back in 2022, and relocating games now would be neither simple nor cheap.
Yet, the threats alone are already influencing the narrative—and forcing FIFA to emphasize safety without publicly challenging a powerful political figure.
Why This Matters for Global Football
The World Cup isn’t just a sport—it’s a global brand tied to billions of dollars.
When politics intersects with sport, trust can erode, and fans might question whether key decisions are made for the right reasons.
How FIFA responds could shape future host selections, especially as mega-events become more vulnerable to geopolitical tensions.
As 2026 draws near, the world is watching not just for goals, but for how FIFA and the U.S. respond to political pressure—or threats.
If matches do get reassigned, it won't just be a logistical change: it will signal that even the biggest sporting event in the world isn’t immune to the currents of politics.
Comments