The most politically charged World Cup ever puts the U.S. and Iran on a collision course while America co-hosts with neighbors it has tariffed
The World Cup has never been free of politics, yet this year’s event may be in a league of its own.
The quadrennial global soccer tournament will be co-hosted for the first time this year by three nations: the U.S., Mexico, and Canada. It will also be the biggest version of the tournament ever, with FIFA, the global soccer governing body, utilizing an expanded 48-country format that adds 16 more teams.
But Lindsay Sarah Krasnoff, a historian and professor at New York University’s Tisch Institute for Global Sport, said what may stand out the most this year is the World Cup’s geopolitical context, which she said has no clear modern precedent.
“We’re in pretty unique territory,” she told Fortune.
Part of the tension comes from the relations between the three host nations. Since President Donald Trump returned to office last year, he has levied tariffs on both the U.S. and Canada as part of his broader trade war.
In addition, his rhetoric toward both countries has turned increasingly hostile and menacing.
While he claims to get along with Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, he has tried to convince her to allow U.S. troops to enter Mexico to fight drug cartels, a suggestion Sheinbaum rejected as an affront to the country’s sovereignty.
“The president of Mexico is a lovely woman, but she is so afraid of the cartels that she can’t even think straight,” Trump said last July.
The president has also attacked America’s northern neighbor, calling for Canada to become the 51st U.S. state and labeling Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney a “future governor.”
It is not the first time that co-hosts have dealt with complicated relations. Japan and South Korea, two countries with plenty of baggage due to Japan’s colonial rule of the Korean peninsula in the early 20th century, jointly organized the 2002 World Cup. The tournament was largely seen as a success, Krasnoff said, and laid the groundwork for future tournaments to be hosted by more than one nation.
But Krasnoff noted that while the tension between South Korea and Japan is historical, the conflict between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico is active and ongoing. The fact that the three countries plan to review their trilateral trade agreement, the USMCA, in July during the tournament adds extra weight.
Iran war
The Iran war, which followed U.S. strikes on nuclear sites in Iran last June, has added another point of contention. It is the first time that a World Cup host nation has been actively at war with a participating nation. And while they are currently in a ceasefire, to say the dynamic is uncomfortable is an understatement.
“When the World Cup draw happened in December, I don’t think anyone really had on their bingo card that one of the co-hosts would be at war with a participating nation — and the first team to actually qualify,” said Krasnoff.
Iran was the first nation to qualify for this year’s World Cup, which will take place over 39 days starting in June, but the country’s participation has been uncertain—even before the U.S. and Israel attacked the country in late February.
In December, the country boycotted the World Cup draw in Washington after the U.S. denied visas to several members of its delegation, including its national team coach.
After the war started and the U.S. assassinated Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, the Iran’s sports minister said on state television in early March that the country could not attend the tournament.
“Given that this corrupt government assassinated our leader, under no circumstances can we participate in the World Cup,” he said, according to ESPN.
Trump later shot back in a Truth Social post that the Iranian team is welcome, “but I really don’t believe it is appropriate that they be there, for their own life and safety.”
Iran requested its group stage games, all of which are to be played in the U.S., be moved to Mexico. FIFA rejected the request this week, with FIFA President Infantino insisting in an interview that Iran is “coming for sure” to the U.S.
“But Iran has to come, of course. They represent their people. They have qualified. The players want to play,” he told CNBC on Tuesday.
Even if FIFA had agreed to move Iran’s games out of the U.S.—perhaps by switching its group stage games with South Korea which plays all its group stage games in Mexico—it would still have had to play in the U.S. if it advanced to the elimination round.
Political turmoil
The World Cup by its very nature of bringing nations together has always been political. Yet some tournaments have stood out more than others.
In 1934, World Cup took place in Italy, then ruled by fascist dictator Benito Mussolini. The Italian host nation went on to win the tournament, but it was soiled by accusations of meddling from Mussolini. In 1978, the World Cup was held in Argentina, then governed by General Jorge Rafael Videla’s military junta. The tournament was won by host nation Argentina, but also plagued by corruption accusations.
That’s not to mention the controversies surrounding the tournaments played in Russia and Qatar, in 2018 and 2022, respectively. In 2018, human rights organizations accused FIFA of enabling “sportswashing” on the part of Russian President Putin, while ignoring Russia’s repression and torture of LGBTQ people as well as the deaths of 21 construction workers during stadium construction, among other issues.
Ahead of the 2022 World Cup, critics also highlighted the harsh conditions faced by migrant workers building stadiums as well as the country’s ban on homosexuality.
Heightened geopolitical tensions have long been in the background of these tournaments, which have also been filled with political symbolism, Krasnoff said.
The 1986 quarterfinal between England and Argentina took place just a couple of years after the Falklands war, where the U.K. reclaimed control of islands from Argentina.
The controversial match, where Diego Maradona scored his “Hand of God” goal that ultimately helped Argentina be crowned victors, was received as “not just a footballing win, soccer win for Argentina, but also kind of a referendum on the war itself,” she said.
During a Cold War World Cup held in West Germany in 1974, East Germany defeated West Germany 1-0, in a match that was a reflection of the ideological divide between capitalism and communism. West Germany went on to win the tournament.
This summer’s World Cup comes with its own challenges and symbolism, said Krasnoff. Iran and the U.S. will be scrutinized for their performance on the field and for how the teams project pride in their respective nations, given the ongoing war as well as the countries’ history at the tournament.
The U.S. and Iran have met twice before in two politically charged World Cup games. In a 1998 group stage match in France, Iran beat the U.S. 2-1 in their first encounter following the 1979 Iranian revolution.
At the time, U.S. Soccer Federation President Bob Contiguglia said the match was “the mother of all games.”
At the World Cup in Qatar in 2022, the two teams played each other once again, and the U.S. struck back, beating Iran 1-0 and knocking them out of the tournament.
A third World Cup matchup is still possible this summer. If both the U.S. and Iran get second place in their respective groups, they would face each other in a July 3 elimination game in Dallas.
Krasnoff, for her part, is watching to see whether the pageantry of the World Cup eventually overwhelms the political noise. She noted that anxieties in the lead-up to every major tournament, from South Africa 2010 to Qatar 2022, tend to recede once kickoff begins and the shared spectacle takes over. Yet, it’s unclear yet whether the political turmoil surrounding this tournament will be too much to disregard.
However, whatever happens, the world’s biggest soccer tournament has a way of creating connections across otherwise uncrossable divides, she noted.
After kickoff, “everyone is focused on the game and the magic,” she said.
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com