While the gold tape still flutters in the New Jersey air, it’s perhaps premature to fully evaluate the 2026 World Cup. A comprehensive assessment will emerge only after time allows us to process the event’s memories and understand the implications of various occurrences. Nevertheless, we can attempt to rank this tournament’s significance, particularly as it concluded with Leandro Paredes entangled with Gavi.
The Balogun Affair may lead to substantial repercussions. Currently, it seems the world has moved on, typical of tournaments that possess their own momentum, driving towards a conclusion that often overshadows other issues. However, the bending of long-standing precedents under political pressure, enabling a specific player to take the field, mirrors previous actions by Gianni Infantino, such as facilitating Cristiano Ronaldo’s participation and altering the qualification criteria for the Club World Cup to accommodate Lionel Messi. This marks a significant turning point.
In the future, we might accept that star players receive allowances because financial gain overshadows ethics or the integrity of the sport. The emphasis on profit has been a hallmark of the 2026 tournament. Alternatively, this could galvanize opposition against Infantino, with numerous British and some American politicians increasingly vocal in their criticism of FIFA and its leadership. A potential immediate outcome could be the World Cup’s expansion to 64 teams as Infantino seeks to solidify his support base, especially following the setbacks caused by U.S. and Canadian immigration policies, which challenge his self-proclaimed role as a champion of the global south.
Several other contentious issues will likely resurface. The treatment of Iran was appalling and sets a troubling precedent. Although ticket prices may decrease for the 2030 World Cup, the notion that a fair portion should be accessible to regular fans who attend league matches regularly has vanished. The World Cup is no longer a grassroots event but rather a luxury spectacle.
The true cost to host cities will only become clear in hindsight, encompassing both financial and social aspects. In the U.S. and Canada, homeless individuals have faced street sweeps, with many deprived of their few belongings, identification, and medications. Mexico has witnessed protests regarding water extraction and environmental harm associated with World Cup-related projects.
The Italian publication la Gazzetta dello Sport described the World Cup as a “disaster” in a recent double-page spread, highlighting significant concerns such as ticket pricing, the Balogun situation, adverse weather, increased games, and diminished rest. While this characterization may seem exaggerated, the aftermath was indeed troubling, as the newspaper’s ticket allocation for the final was cut from five to two. Although it’s unclear if these events were connected, the idea that a media entity could be denied access for not adhering to the official narrative—that this World Cup was the greatest ever—is unsettling.
This incident reflects FIFA’s generally dismissive stance towards the media throughout the tournament. While certain venues, especially Houston and Atlanta, made commendable efforts to be welcoming, the overall organization and facilities were the poorest seen in at least six World Cups. Understandably, the general public may not prioritize journalists or their access to adequate amenities. This attitude illustrates a broader perspective: fans are viewed as revenue sources to be exploited, while the media is seen as a nuisance.
The quality of football played was decent but not exceptional. Several thrilling matches occurred, including Brazil versus Japan, Morocco against the Netherlands, England facing Mexico, Argentina versus Cape Verde, Norway taking on Côte d’Ivoire, Belgium against Senegal, Norway versus Brazil, and Argentina against Egypt. Unfortunately, most of these exciting contests happened in the early knockout rounds. The quarter-finals were less inspiring, with Argentina’s semi-final victory over England being captivating due to a dramatic collapse that will spark discussions for years. In contrast, Spain’s win over France was rather uneventful, as Spain quickly established dominance over the French without significant challenge.
The final match, however, was disappointing. While the deserving team triumphed in their usual clinical fashion, the lackluster display was a direct result of the earlier leniency shown towards Argentina during the tournament. The finale inevitably colors the overall perception of the event, placing it behind the tournaments of 2022 and 2018, not to mention the iconic World Cups of the 1980s and 1998. Future evaluations will determine its position, potentially ranking it alongside or below 2014 and 2006. It may not have been extraordinary, but it was satisfactory, and amid FIFA’s grandstanding, that might be enough.
- This is an extract from Soccer Desk, a newsletter from the Guardian. Subscribe for free here.
