Top 8 Controversies of the 2026 World Cup

When the final whistle blew on the FIFA World Cup 2026™, I found myself reflecting on a tournament that brought tears, drew cheers, and inspired hope in equal measure. While the World Cup offered a shared language of love at a time when it feels like geopolitical tensions have destroyed all sense of global unity, it was not without controversy. To understand the Cup’s legacy, I look to the off-field drama that sometimes overshadowed the game itself. Here is my breakdown of the eight most controversial events at the 2026 World Cup.

8. The Infamous FIFA Peace Prize

Long before the tournament’s first kickoff, FIFA introduced a new “Peace Prize” to be awarded annually as part of its “Football Unites the World” campaign. What could possibly go wrong delivering a highly political trophy under the guise of unity? In hindsight, almost everything about the award sparked controversy, beginning with the decision to present it to one of the most polarizing figures in modern history: President Donald Trump.

At the Kennedy Center in Washington on Dec. 5, FIFA President Gianni Infantino presented the award to Trump for his role in brokering the October ceasefire between Israel and Palestine. This gesture has not aged well. Not only has this ceasefire been violated at least 3,600 times by Israel alone, but the United States also coordinated air strikes on Iran in late February.

In the future, I would advise Mr. Infantino to stick to organizing tournaments rather than fabricating political prizes.

7. Eat-Your-Retirement Ticket Prices

Any economics teacher will tell you that when demand is high and supply is limited, prices rise. However, there has to be a point at which we start to question if pricing out the most diehard fans is worth the extra pocket change for FIFA. For example, tickets for group-stage matches in Vancouver and Toronto that did not feature Canada ranged from more than $600 to over $1,600. With lodging, travel, and food, the total easily climbed into the thousands. The heavy fan backlash prompted FIFA to offer a limited allotment of $60 tickets to be allocated to national federations for “regular” supporters. Even considering this accommodation, I sympathize with the millions of fans who wouldn’t dare to dream about getting their hands on any World Cup ticket, let alone a final.

Note that the championship match between Spain and Argentina has become the most expensive U.S. sporting event ever, with the average price hovering around $11,327 and the cheapest being $7,402.

6. The Referee Who Was Denied Entry

There is no doubt that referees are a fundamental part of the game, ensuring fair play and offering fans an outlet to unleash their pent-up frustration. Years are spent selecting the very best officials, including CAF Men’s Referee of the Year Omar Artan. Yet after being interviewed for over 11 hours, the Somali referee was denied entry into the United States at the Miami airport despite holding a diplomatic passport.

No details were given by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection besides “vetting concerns,” but considering that Somalia is one of the nearly 40 countries on the travel ban list implemented by Trump, it isn’t exactly difficult to infer the reason. FIFA later confirmed that Artan would miss the tournament, stating that “FIFA is not involved in the host immigration process, including visa adjudications.”

Artan responded much classier to the incident than I would have, saying that what happened to him was “unfortunate.” Perhaps this is why he officiates internationally, and I don’t.

5. Iranian National Team Border Battle

From beginning to end of their tournament run, the Iranian national team had to overcome extraordinarily hostile treatment at the hands of U.S. immigration. A day before the World Cup started, the team was forced to relocate from their training camp in Arizona to Tijuana, Mexico. Meanwhile, 14 members of Iran’s wider team and the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran Football Federation were reportedly denied visas entirely. Recovery was difficult because players were only permitted to enter the United States a day prior to their match and had to leave on the same day for each of their first two group-stage matches. For their final game against Egypt, the team was fortunately able to arrive two days earlier, allowing for better rest.

Ultimately, I give credit to the Iranian players, who did well to compete with dignity knowing they were unwelcome because of a war beyond their control.

4. A Justified Visa Refusal?

Most of the visa refusals on this list have served a political purpose. But what about cases involving players who are awaiting trial for a violent crime? Ahead of the tournament, Ghanaian player Thomas Partey was denied a visa by Canadian authorities for falsely claiming that he was not facing any criminal charges. The former Arsenal player has been charged with five counts of rape and one count of sexual assault involving several women he dated between 2020 and 2025. In February 2026, two new counts were added after a woman came forward to allege that Partey raped her twice in one day. The midfielder has pleaded not guilty on all counts.

Because his application was denied, Partey was unable to play in Ghana’s opening World Cup match against Panama. He was, however, eligible to face England as he had been approved for entry into the United States. English fans booed Partey during his first touches of their Group L match, and a video captured English defender Djed Spence appearing to refuse to shake hands with Partey. The snub quickly circulated on social media, with some users praising Spence for his strong stance.

While I do believe that Partey has the right to a fair and free trial, I also believe that national teams have a moral imperative to select the best representatives for their country. Choosing a man with serious criminal charges is a bad look for the Black Stars and overshadows the nation’s accomplishments.

3. Mbappé vs. the Paraguay Senator

As much as we would like to believe racism is a relic of the past, we are constantly reminded otherwise. Right after France’s 1-0 victory over Paraguay in the Round of 16, a minor incident occurred when French striker Kylian Mbappé appeared to ignore a handshake from Paraguayan goalkeeper Orlando Gill, causing the keeper to hurl the ball at him. The loss prompted Paraguayan Senator Celeste Amarilla to post a long racist diatribe on X, at one point comparing Mbappé to an ape. “Instead of mother’s milk, he sucked on coconuts, and the most educated thing he heard were chimpanzees,” she stated.

Her racism was so exaggerated that it has earned condemnation from both the Paraguayan government and fans around the globe. Mbappé responded to her remarks, describing the senator as a “despicable woman” who is “unworthy” of her position. “I will never allow people like her the freedom to spread their hatred and racism across the world,” he added.

Instead of fully retracting her comments, Amarilla said that while she regretted the racial comment, she labeled Mbappé’s response as a form of “gender-based violence” and demanded that he apologize to her. Quite frankly, trying to claim victimhood as the primary antagonist is not only bizarre but a poor representation of women in positions of power. From one woman to another, Senator Amarilla, please remember not to mistake accountability for oppression.

2. The Unforgettable Red Card

Do presidents have the power to change match outcomes? Apparently, they do. In the U.S. match against Bosnia and Herzegovina in the Round of 32, American striker Folarin Balogun received a red card for a challenge that caught his studs on a defender’s ankle. The referee did not initially send Balogun off, but a VAR review led to a straight red card. That meant the striker was set to miss his next match against Belgium until Trump made three phone calls to FIFA, asking them to review the decision.

FIFA’s disciplinary committee, which does not allow teams to appeal red cards, suspended the one-match ban, making Balogun eligible to compete in the Round of 16. Article 27 of the FIFA disciplinary code does permit the suspension of cards, provided it is not related to match-fixing, but it is rarely invoked. The most recent player to have his red card suspended was Cristiano Ronaldo, who faced a three-match ban for an elbow during a World Cup qualification game. Though Ronaldo did miss Portugal’s final qualifying match, FIFA’s decision to suspend the remaining two matches of his ban cleared the way for him to play in his team’s first two World Cup group games.

While the Ronaldo precedent is controversial because it opens the debate about favoritism by FIFA, it does not compare to a host nation’s leader intervening mid-tournament. I worry that Balogun’s suspension—even though the United States ultimately lost—sets a dangerous precedent that breaches FIFA’s foundational principle of political neutrality.

1. Just Following the Script: Egypt Accuses Officials of Match-Fixing

Alright, I’m probably going to make a few Argentine fans upset with this one. In the 58th minute, Egypt thought they scored against Argentina in the Round of 16 to put the Pharaohs ahead by two. Sadly, the goal was disallowed following a VAR review that showed Marawan Attia stepping on the foot of Argentinian defender Lisandro Martínez about 20 seconds before the goal was scored. VAR ruled that despite the foul occurring in the other half, it qualified as an offense in the build-up.

Argentina made a comeback, scoring three goals in 13 minutes to win the game. The winning goal prompted the entire Egyptian bench to decry that they should have been awarded a penalty in the build-up to the goal. During a post-match interview, the Egyptian coach said that the team was a victim of an “injustice,” and their football federation has demanded that FIFA launch an investigation into the match officials.

Though I agree that there was no foul on Argentina’s third goal, I do think disallowing the second Egyptian goal constitutes a strong overreach by VAR. Egypt did not gain possession in an advantageous position, so their anger, in my opinion, is justified. For the World Cup to maintain its integrity going forward, FIFA must ensure that VAR remains an emergency safety net for clear errors—not a tool that rewrites the natural flow of our beloved sport.

Ella Ricketts ’28 (ericketts@college.harvard.edu) still irrationally believes that it’s coming home in 2030.