The World Cup’s Visa Dilemma: Global Sport, Sovereign Borders

Image Generated by AI using ChatGPT

Introduction

The 2026 FIFA World Cup kicks off in days, beginning on 11th June 2026. Typically, the final week before the tournament is centred on squad announcements and pre-tournament build-up. Instead, a quieter structural issue has emerged. Visa-related complications involving participants from Iran, Iraq, and South Africa have exposed a fundamental constraint in global sport: FIFA does not control access to its own competition; instead, it is the host states that determine entry. Ultimately, this highlights how global sporting events operate within an international system where sovereign governments have the final say in access and mobility across international borders.

International Sport Operating Within Sovereign Infrastructure

FIFA operates “to govern association football and related matters”. However, it does not govern the movement of players. That authority rests solely upon the sovereign host states, in this year’s case, the United States, Mexico and Canada. Therefore, there are two different systems working simultaneously, FIFA, and the nation-state. FIFA is organising a global, international tournament, yet because mobility is controlled by the host nations, participation is conditional, regardless of successful qualification. Hence, FIFA’s global tournament is operating within a distinctly national infrastructure.

Iran’s uncertainty

Iran’s case highlights the issue that may arise from such friction between these systems, particularly when there is a time constraint. The outbreak of the US - Iran conflict on 28^th February 2026 raised questions regarding Iranian players’ visas, which Iranian officials have sought to clarify. Tensions between the US and Iran meant the Iranian national team’s tournament base camp was moved from Tucson, Arizona, to Tijuana, Mexico, with Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum stating “we have no reason to deny them the possibility of staying in Mexico”.

On June 5^th, just 10 days before Iran’s first match, it was announced that all players had received their visas for the US, however, “more than a dozen members of the support staff, that could include coaches, trainers, analysts and medical personnel, and Iranian soccer federation officials expected to accompany the team were rejected”. Perhaps the most notable figure whose visa application was rejected is Mehdi Taj, president of the Iranian football federation, who is also a “former commander in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps”. In response, the Iranian football federation declared that the hostile actions of the US government “contradicts international sports laws”. While all Iranian players now have their required visas, the real issue is not necessarily the fear of exclusion, but reliability.

Beyond Iran

Iran’s case is not entirely unique. In mid-May, reports emerged suggesting the US Government denied visas to five Iraqi players. The US State Department refuted such reports, stating "currently, ​there are no known issues affecting the Iraq ⁠National Team players, and they remain on ​track to compete in the World Cup". Despite the claims later being disproven, the situation demonstrated how typical administrative questions can escalate and become politicised when major international events occur. 

Unlike Iraq, South Africa's squad and staff experienced confirmed visa delays. Their departure to Mexico, where the team’s training camp is located, was initially set to leave 31^st May, but was postponed by a day due to “challenges regarding visas". 

The Persistence of Borders

These three incidents ultimately reflect today’s reality regarding globalisation and borders. Political scientist Joseph Nye described globalisation as “the growth of interdependence at intercontinental, rather than national or regional, distances”. For much of the post-Cold War era, it was believed that this interconnectedness through globalisation reduced the significance of national borders. However, as the build-up to the 2026 World Cup suggests, this is not entirely the case, demonstrating how national governments, not international organisations such as FIFA, retain control over mobility across borders.

While the World Cup is often seen as the pinnacle of global events, bringing in people from a variety of nations and continents, it remains dependent upon a system built around sovereign states. FIFA can determine which countries can and cannot partake in the World Cup, for example, banning “Russian clubs and national teams from all competitions”, but it cannot issue visas or override border controls. 

Global Governance Limitations

The case of the 2026 World Cup demonstrates when global governance hits its limit. FIFA and other international sporting organisations span across borders but are constrained by an international system in which they operate, where nation states have the final say. Success of such international events is therefore dependent on the cooperation of both entities. While this is nothing new, the incidents in recent weeks remind us that the foundation such events are built around is sovereignty, not necessarily globalisation. 

The visa issues will most likely be resolved by the time the competition kicks off, and attention will be diverted to the games themselves. However, the geopolitical reality will stay the same. Every four years, the World Cup demonstrates the world coming together in celebration of football, but participation is still dependent on permission to cross national borders.