"Every World Cup arrives with controversy. That is part of the tournament's DNA. Host nations worry about stadium readiness. Fans argue about ticket prices. Security planners lose sleep. What feels different this time is that the warning is not coming from activists in the stands or lawmakers in host cities. It is coming from the top of the sport's old establishment."
"The United States is not just hosting a sporting event next summer. Along with Canada and Mexico, it is hosting one of the largest temporary international migrations in modern history. Millions of people will cross borders to attend matches. That turns immigration law, administrative discretion, security policy, consumer protection, and even tort liability into part of the tournament infrastructure. Let's start with the travel bans, because they cut closest to the heart of fan access."
"Reports that supporters from Senegal, Ivory Coast, Iran, and Haiti may be barred unless they already hold visas raise immediate questions about how immigration policy intersects with mega events. Legally, the federal government has wide latitude to regulate entry into the country. Courts have repeatedly upheld presidential authority in this area when national security rationales are asserted. But FIFA tournaments operate on a different plane than ordinary tourism."
Controversy accompanies every World Cup, including concerns about stadium readiness, ticket pricing, and security. For 2026, senior figures within the sport's establishment have urged fans to avoid matches in the United States, citing potential aggressive immigration treatment. Travel restrictions and reported bans targeting supporters from Senegal, Ivory Coast, Iran, and Haiti threaten fan access unless visas are already held. The United States, Canada, and Mexico will host one of the largest temporary international migrations in modern history, making immigration law, administrative discretion, security policy, consumer protection, and tort liability integral to tournament planning. The federal government retains broad authority over entry, and courts have upheld such power when national security is asserted.
Read at Above the Law
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]