FIFA President Gianni Infantino expressed regret to the organization’s board on Thursday regarding his plan to sell stakes in the World Cup to private investors. “I apologized for the mistakes that we made in relation to the communication and consultation process related to the … project, which then led to many consequences,” said Infantino after the meeting, adding that his proposal had dominated discussions. “But what is important to remember is that it was a proposal — so in no way a done deal — just a proposal that actually intended to enable FIFA to invest more in our member associations, as opposed to replacing support from existing resources,” he added. Thursday’s meeting in Zurich was the first time FIFA’s Council convened since the 2026 World Cup ended and details of Infantino’s controversial proposal came to light. The plan was hit with immediate backlash from football associations around the world, as well as high-profile figures like EU Sports Commissioner Glenn Micallef and U.K. Prime Minister Andy Burnham. The sell-off plan also prompted calls for Infantino to resign as FIFA president, while U.S. President Donald Trump stepped in to defend him. FIFA Council Vice President and Football Association Chair Debbie Hewitt expressed disappointment that documents about the plan had not been shared with the board, saying many questions remained unanswered after the meeting. “I’ve repeatedly asked for the papers to be shared … In spite of the request today, I haven’t received them,” she told the BBC. During the three-and-a-half-hour meeting, Infantino was also pressed about the contentious decision to suspend the red-card ban given to U.S. player Folarin Balogun during this summer’s tournament. FIFA said in a statement its legal committee would undertake a review of the body’s disciplinary procedures, and “a presentation will also be made at the next FIFA Council meeting in December 2026.”

Germany’s football association on Friday ruled out a boycott of the 2026 FIFA World Cup after facing some pressure to pull out over U.S. President Donald Trump’s foreign policy. “The DFB Executive Committee agrees that debates on sports policy should be conducted internally and not in public,” the association said in a statement. “A boycott of the 2026 World Cup in the United States, Mexico and Canada is currently not under consideration. In preparation for the tournament, the DFB is in dialogue with representatives from politics, security, business and sport. “We believe in the unifying power of sport and in the global impact that a football World Cup can have. Our goal is to strengthen this positive force — not to prevent it,” it added. Over the last two weeks, German media and politicians have debated a potential boycott of the sporting event following Trump’s now-retracted threats to impose tariffs on EU countries opposing his plans to annex Greenland. The World Cup is one of Trump’s prestige projects, and the U.S. president maintains close ties to Gianni Infantino, president of the world football governing body FIFA. A boycott by heavyweight European nations would cripple the tournament. Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos amid tensions over Greenland, Infantino sought to downplay political divisions, saying: “The world stands still because the World Cup and football has really an impact on the lives, on the moods of people like [nothing] else. There is nothing anywhere close to what football does. It changes the mood not just of people, but of countries.”  Calls for a politically motivated boycott of sporting mega events are not new. Ahead of the 2022 World Cup tournament in Qatar, media and politicians in several EU countries debated boycotting the event over the host country’s treatment of migrant workers. Germany has won the World Cup four times.

A senior German football executive has urged Europe to consider boycotting the 2026 FIFA World Cup, as U.S. President Donald Trump’s escalating rhetoric over Greenland and broader foreign policy moves spark unease across the continent. Oke Göttlich, president of Bundesliga club St. Pauli and a vice president of the German Football Association, said in an interview with German media that the time had come to “seriously consider and discuss” a boycott, comparing the current moment to the Cold War-era Olympic boycotts of the 1980s. “What were the justifications for the boycotts of the Olympic Games in the 1980s?” Göttlich told the Hamburger Morgenpost. “By my reckoning, the potential threat is greater now than it was then. We need to have this discussion.” Göttlich also took aim at FIFA President Gianni Infantino — widely seen as a close ally of Trump — accusing football’s leadership of applying double standards. “Qatar was too political for everyone, and now we’re completely apolitical?” he said. “That really, really bothers me.” His comments add momentum to a growing debate in Europe over whether global sport can remain insulated from politics as Trump ramps up pressure on allies — from threats surrounding Greenland to U.S. military action in Venezuela — while treating the World Cup as a major soft-power trophy of his second term. Not all governments are receptive. France’s sports minister said this week there was “no desire” in Paris to boycott the tournament, which will be co-hosted by the U.S., Canada and Mexico, arguing that sport should remain separate from politics. Still, several European football leaders have already shown a willingness to wade into political disputes. The president of Norway’s football federation, Lise Klaveness, has repeatedly criticized human rights issues tied to major tournaments, while Ireland’s football association pushed to exclude Israel from international competition before the Gaza peace agreement last year. Göttlich also dismissed concerns that a boycott would unfairly punish players, including St. Pauli’s international stars. “The life of a professional player is not worth more than the lives of countless people in various regions who are being directly or indirectly attacked or threatened by the World Cup host,” he said.

urope has spent the last week rummaging around for leverage that would force U.S. President Donald Trump to back off his threats to seize Greenland from Denmark. While Trump now says he will not be imposing planned tariffs on European allies, some politicians think they’ve found the answer if he changes his mind again: boycott the 2026 FIFA World Cup. The quadrennial soccer jamboree, which will be hosted in the U.S., Mexico and Canada this summer, is a major soft-power asset for Trump — and an unprecedented European boycott would diminish the tournament beyond repair. “Leverage is currency with Trump, and he clearly covets the World Cup,” said Adam Hodge, a former National Security Council official during the Biden administration. “Europe’s participation is a piece of leverage Trump would respect and something they could consider using if the transatlantic relationship continues to swirl down the drain.” With Trump’s Greenland ambitions putting the world on edge, key political figures who’ve raised the idea say that any decision on a boycott would — for now, at least — rest with national sport authorities rather than governments. “Decisions on participation in or boycott of major sport events are the sole responsibility of the relevant sports associations, not politicians,” Christiane Schenderlein, Germany’s state secretary for sport, told AFP on Tuesday. The French sport ministry said there are “currently” no government plans for France to boycott. That means, for the moment, a dozen soccer bureaucrats around Europe — representing the countries that have so far qualified for the tournament — have the power to torpedo Trump’s World Cup, a pillar of his second term in office like the 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles. (Another four European countries will be added in spring after the European playoffs are completed.) While they may not be household names, people like Spain’s Rafael Louzán, England’s Debbie Hewitt and the Netherlands’ Frank Paauw may now have more leverage over Trump than the European Commission with its so-called trade bazooka. “I think it is obvious that a World Cup without the European teams would be irrelevant in sports terms — with the exceptions of Brazil and Argentina all the other candidates in a virtual top 10 will be European — and, as a consequence, it would also be a major financial blow to FIFA,” said Miguel Maduro, former chair of FIFA’s Governance Committee. Several of the European soccer chiefs have already shown their willingness to enter the political fray. Norwegian Football Federation president Lise Klaveness has been outspoken on LGBTQ+ issues and the use of migrant labor in preparations for the 2022 World Cup. The Football Association of Ireland pushed to exclude Israel from international competition before the country signed the Gaza peace plan in October. “Football has always been far more than a sport,” Turkish Football Federation President Ibrahim Haciosmanoglu, whose team is still competing for one of the four remaining spots, wrote in an open letter to his fellow federation presidents in September calling for Israel’s removal. Trump attempted Wednesday in Davos to cool tensions over Greenland by denying he would use military force to capture the massive, mineral-rich Arctic island. But during the same speech he firmly reiterated his desire to obtain it and demanded “immediate negotiations” with relevant European leaders toward that goal. Later in the day, in a social media post, Trump said he reached an agreement with NATO on a Greenland framework. His Davos remarks are unlikely to pacify European politicians across the political spectrum who want to see a tougher stance against the White House. “Seriously, can we imagine going to play the World Cup in a country that attacks its ‘neighbors,’ threatens to invade Greenland, destroys international law, wants to torpedo the UN, establishes a fascist and racist militia in its country, attacks the opposition, bans supporters from about 15 countries from attending the tournament, plans to ban all LGBT symbols from stadiums, etc.?” wondered left-wing French lawmaker Eric Coquerel on social media. Influential German conservative Roderich Kiesewetter also told the Augsburger Allgemeine news outlet: “If Donald Trump carries out his threats regarding Greenland and starts a trade war with the EU, I find it hard to imagine European countries participating in the World Cup.” Russia’s World Cup in 2018 faced similar calls for a boycott over the Kremlin’s illegal annexation of Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula, as did Qatar’s 2022 tournament over the Gulf petromonarchy’s dismal human rights record. While neither mooted boycott came to pass — indeed, the World Cup and the Olympics haven’t faced a major diplomatic cold shoulder since retaliatory snubs by countries for the Moscow 1980 and Los Angeles 1984 Summer Olympics — Trump’s seizure of Greenland would put Europe in a position with no recent historical parallel. Neither FIFA, the world governing body that organizes the tournament, nor four national associations contacted by POLITICO immediately responded to requests for comment. Tom Schmidtgen and Ferdinand Knapp contributed to this report.

World football governing body FIFA on Wednesday announced it will introduce an award “to reward individuals who have taken exceptional and extraordinary actions for peace and by doing so have united people across the world.” The prize, called the FIFA Peace Prize, will be awarded annually, with the inaugural edition presented by FIFA President Gianni Infantino on Dec. 3 during the final draw for FIFA World Cup 26 in Washington. “In an increasingly unsettled and divided world, it’s fundamental to recognise the outstanding contribution of those who work hard to end conflicts and bring people together in a spirit of peace,” said Gianni Infantino. Infantino has forged a close relationship with U.S. President Donald Trump, who has spent much of his second term in office trying to broker peace in various conflicts around the world — and to ensure that he receives the recognition he feels is appropriate for his role as a peacemaker. Despite his best efforts, Trump did not get the Nobel Peace Prize he had been overtly lobbying for. The White House blasted the Nobel Committee for not awarding the prize to Trump last month, saying that it had “placed politics over peace.” Trump has also threatened to annex Greenland and Canada, and last week said the U.S. would recommence nuclear testing. In July, FIFA opened an office in New York’s Trump Tower and appointed Trump’s daughter, Ivanka, to the board of an education charity project co-funded by World Cup ticket sales. FIFA did not immediately respond to POLITICO’s request for a comment.

President Donald Trump has celebrated next year’s World Cup as a once-in-a-generation opportunity to show off the United States. But in many host cities, that honor is tempered by a growing concern over shouldering millions of dollars in security and logistical costs. Local host committees, private organizations established to stage the World Cup in their areas, find themselves squeezed between two much bigger forces. Soccer governing body FIFA — for whom the quadrennial tournament is a leading source of revenue — significantly constrains local organizers’ ability to raise their own funds. While Congress has approved $625 million in security funding nationwide, local governments still have to find the money to cover other expenses that could run up to $150 million per city. “There’s a little bit coming in, but certainly there is not enough to cover our cost,” said Lisa Gillmor, mayor of the Bay Area city of Santa Clara, California, where six matches will be played. “It’s a tall task to take on.” Local and state governments are scrambling to bridge the gap. Houston and Dallas are tapping tens of millions from Texas’ Major Events Reimbursement Program Fund. Kansas’ Wyandotte County, home to Kansas City, is considering a new hotel tax. Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey put in a supplemental budget request for $20 million to be spent “in coordination with FIFA based on their needs.” Some host cities are already starting to cut back on their World Cup dreams, especially around “FanFest” events that are a hallmark of the modern tournament. While all of the host cities in Canada and Mexico have committed to hosting the sprawling watch parties for the full duration of the 39-day tournament, fewer than half of those in the United States have. The others are likely to either shrink the festivals’ length or consider other ways to engage non-ticketed fans. At least two U.S. host committees have privately confronted FIFA over its lack of support on expenses like staging and entertainment, according to two people familiar with the planning at the local level. Nowhere is the situation as tense as in California, where the state’s refusal to deliver more funding to two venues due to its own budget problems has driven the Los Angeles organizers to consider their own watch parties beyond FIFA’s control. The international federation countered with threats to deny public viewing licenses if the host committee deviates from its preferred format. The dispute provides a window into the larger structural imbalance that’s been a source of ongoing friction between FIFA and the host cities. FIFA controls nearly all of the event’s lucrative revenue streams: global sponsorships, ticket sales, in-stadium advertising, broadcasting rights. Host committees, meanwhile, are on the hook for major public-facing costs, from policing to transportation, and now, weeks of free entertainment for tens of thousands of fans. At a meeting this week with executives from the 11 host committees, the head of the White House’s World Cup Task Force sent a clear message: The federal government would help with security needs, but nothing more. “That’s obviously an economic issue. Taxpayers can’t flip the bill for everything,” task force executive director Andrew Giuliani said in an interview. “There are certainly other very important things that President Trump has prioritized throughout this administration.” THE WORLD CUP GOES CORPORATE The first and last time the United States hosted the men’s World Cup, in 1994, a central organizing committee coordinated events across all cities, including ticket sales, sponsorships and licensing rights. The tournament generated a $50 million surplus, which was used to establish the U.S. Soccer Foundation to grow the sport domestically. That experience also awakened the organization that controls the World Cup to its moneymaking potential. Since then, FIFA has doubled the tournament size, from 24 to 48 teams, and began to stage it across multiple countries. (The 2026 cup will be the first with three co-hosts.) The final match has come to resemble the Super Bowl, with a half-time show and premium hospitality packages. FIFA will spend $3 billion to stage next year’s tournament, a federation official said, and expects to bring in $13 billion in revenue over a four-year period from 2023 to 2026. Cities have come to compete aggressively to share in the wealth and attention the World Cup generates. In previous tournaments, including in 1994, host nations — many with a federal sports ministry — dealt with FIFA through a single, centralized organizing committee. But this time, FIFA and American planners have chosen a decentralized model through which the 11 U.S. cities awarded matches have independent relationships with Zurich-based organization . Each has negotiated a so-called host agreeement that outlines how financial and legal liabilities once the responsibility of a national organizers fall instead on local hosts. But this time, FIFA and American planners have chosen a decentralized model in which city committees maintain their own relations with the Zurich-based federation. Host agreements delineate which costs are assumed by each side, legal and financial liability falling to local organizers rather than a national umbrella organization. The Bay Area Host Committee, for example, agreed to pay $25 million to modify Levi’s Stadium, located between San Jose and San Francisco. (While FIFA has assumed responsibility for exterior fencing at stadiums, according to an official, interior modifications — typically to convert football fields for soccer use — fall to local organizers.) The host agreement obligates the committee to provide free public transportation for ticketholders, police escorts for dignitaries, and no-cost security, fire and medical services. But in Los Angeles, those negotiations did not go so smoothly. Stan Kroenke, owner of the Los Angeles Rams and its SoFi Stadium — the most expensive sports venue on earth — expressed an interest in hosting the World Cup final. But Kroenke recoiled at the cost of improvements that FIFA demanded for its marquee match, which he seemed unlikely to recoup given the way revenue would be split. Relations between FIFA and the LA host committee have been fractious ever since. “I know FIFA can be rapacious,” said a California state lawmaker granted anonymity to speak frankly about dynamics between the two entities. “It’s been a constant challenge and source of complaint for the host committee.” FIFA has tightly monitored how host committees are allowed to raise money to offset their costs, with the biggest point of tension surrounding sponsorships. FIFA has claimed the most commercially viable categories, like beverages and autos, for itself, leaving host committees to sell only limited local packages in less consumer-oriented sectors like real estate and utilities. Whereas FIFA’s global sponsorship packages have been selling for between $50 and $100 million, host committees’ “Supporter Program” deals have been typically priced between $3 to $5 million.“If you’re going to be very tight about what [FIFA is] willing to give to the host committees to help them raise money for the sponsorship packages, you can’t also impose multimillion-dollar requirements on top of their core costs,” said one person close to the planning at the host-committee level, granted anonymity to candidly discuss business practices. The overall price tag to put on matches is expected to run between $100 million and $200 million per city, depending on factors such as the number of matches that will be played there and necessary improvements to transportation and infrastructure. FIFA argues that the local committees knew what they were taking on when they signed host agreements, and that the federation’s Miami-based team has been working with the committees to identify cost savings. “We want to make sure that this is financially viable for all involved, including us,” said a FIFA official who works directly with the host committees granted anonymity to speak candidly. “Where that ends up and how balance sheets look, I can’t tell you. But where we can come up with creative ways to look at categories, or work with cities on finding new opportunities, we have a team that does it every single day.” “It’s a partnership,” the official said. “No one wants them to fail.” THE MONEY CHASE Unable to access FIFA’s commercial bounty, host cities are relying on private donors, local sponsorships and whatever government dollars they can secure. Georgia, which will host a semifinal at Atlanta’s Mercedes-Benz Stadium, has allocated $25 million for public-safety and security infrastructure. Washington state lawmakers set aside nearly $47 million for World Cup expenses, a large portion of which is funding a makeover of Seattle’s Lumen Field. Miami-Dade County pledged $46 million in subsidies and free services to support the tournament. This summer, Congress approved $625 million to reimburse local law enforcement costs, which will be allocated across the 11 U.S. host committees via a FEMA grant program. That group encompasses six jurisdictions that the Justice Department identified this month for “sanctuary city” practices. Giuliani, the head of the White House’s task force, said host committees should expect close scrutiny of how they use federal money. “This is not going to be a slush fund that a leftist politician can use for whatever they’d like,” said Giuliani, who discussed the reimbursement process in his meeting Tuesday with host committee executives. “We want to make sure that this money is actually accountable. We’re of course going to check the receipts and make sure that actually is going to law enforcement.” In South Florida, where seven matches will be played, unrelated fiscal pressures are pushing local government officials to unwind commitments made in more economically flush times. The city of Fort Lauderdale has already moved $350,000 previously assigned to World Cup expenses to its homelessness budget instead, WLRN reported. In nearby Miami-Dade, the county commission is now considering whether to claw back a $10.5 million payment made in May to the local host committee. Many local organizers across the country worry they will never be able to make it all add up, with the deficit saddled by wealthy stadium owners designated as the host committees’ financial backstop. In California, the Los Angeles Rams and San Francisco 49ers football franchises have aggressively lobbied Sacramento to increase the $10 million allocated in direct support for World Cup operations, plus access to another $7 million in pre-appropriated funds for security around their stadiums. Unable to cut back transportation and security costs without jeopardizing public safety, American host cities facing a budget crunch are looking first at the fan festivals. They can cost $1 million each day per city, amounting to up to one-quarter of an overall host committee’s costs. “They want everybody to put on a fan festival, which is great,” said Alan Rothenberg, who chaired the 1994 organizing committee. “But they’re saying you can’t commercialize it. So that’s where the issue is. A lot of risk and limited reward.” HOW TO PARTY ON A MILLION DOLLARS A DAY FIFA first launched the fan festivals in 2006 after recognizing that many fans arrived on match days without tickets. Organizers designated expansive spaces with giant screens where fans could gather away from the stadium — a crowd-control measure with the trappings of a cultural celebration. The events have grown more central to the tourist experience, and a fixture of World Cup imagery broadcast worldwide. FIFA’s requirements for the festivals, which have historically been free for the public, are now outlined for host committees in a 159-page document including signage guidelines, food and beverage standards, and medical facilities. The seemingly innocuous parties have already become a political flashpoint. In 2014, after hundreds of Brazilians took to the streets in protest of high spending on the World Cup, Recife’s mayor pulled public funding for the FanFest. FIFA threatened legal action against the Brazilian city, as the Associated Press reported at the time, ultimately forcing a cut in its festival budget from $8.5 million to about $4.5 million. FIFA initially asked host cities to plan facilities that could accommodate 15,000 visitors and to operate them for the full length of next year’s tournament, which will extend more than a week longer than any past World Cup due to the competition’s expanded size. The three cities in Mexico and two in Canada agreed to do so, even though they will be hosting fewer matches than any of the U.S. cities. Philadelphia, site of a July 4 knockout match, has committed $30 million in city funds for events related to the United States’ 250th anniversary, including a FanFest celebration at Lemon Hill for the World Cup’s duration. So will Dallas and Houston, which are receiving tens of millions of dollars each from Texas’ Major Events Reimbursement Program. New York/New Jersey, which will have both a match during the tournament’s opening weekend and the final on its closing day, will maintain its fan fest throughout. “The FIFA Fan Festival is an important responsibility and priority for our team as we prepare to welcome the world in 2026,” NYNJ host committee spokesperson Natalie Hamilton told POLITICO in a statement. “Fundraising is a key tenant of its success, and our team is dedicated to delivering this central fan destination for local communities, families and fans from around the globe.” But most U.S. cities have balked at that expectation, leading FIFA early last year to soften its demands around FanFest venue size and duration. Now the federation is considering the possibility of allowing host committees to generate revenue by selling FanFest tickets, said a person familiar with the conversations between FIFA and the host committees. Nonetheless, for many American cities plans remain in limbo. “Most cities haven’t definitively told us, ‘This is exactly what we’re doing. This is exactly when we’re doing it,’” said the FIFA official who works directly with the host committees. At least a half-dozen host cities are planning on keeping the festival open only on days when the tournament is most active in their areas. Seattle and Boston are even weighing whether to host watch parties without the official FanFest branding. Los Angeles is exploring a hybrid solution, in which the host committee would open with a weeklong FIFA-approved celebration at the Memorial Coliseum before shifting to smaller regional events that will be operated outside the federation’s purview. “The Los Angeles World Cup Host Committee is working closely with FIFA on a community engagement model that better fits the needs of the region, which is vast and spread out,” Kathryn Schloessman, CEO of the Los Angeles World Cup 2026 Host Committee told POLITICO in a statement. “In addition to the FIFA Fan Festival, we plan to host regional watch events that touch every corner of the county, ensuring it is easy and accessible for all our residents to participate in celebrating this major event.” But FIFA appears unlikely to immediately acquiesce to cities’ efforts to reduce costs. A federation official, granted anonymity to discuss the organization’s internal thinking, emphasized that any public viewing would still need to apply for a license subject to approval from both FIFA and Fox, the tournament’s broadcaster. The White House task force does not intend to get involved in the budget disputes, according to Giuliani. “I want to make sure that those fan festivals, whether they’re open for 20 days or for 40 days, that they’re safe. That’s really what our focus is on this,” Giuliani said. “But if, for some reason, in Philadelphia, let’s say a fan festival is only open for 20 days. Well, then you know what? They can go on the other side of the fan festival and run the Rocky Steps. Yeah, they can go to Constitution Hall and learn about American history.”

World football governing body FIFA has boosted its ties with U.S. President Donald Trump by opening an office in New York’s Trump Tower. The move comes a year ahead of the men’s World Cup — which is being hosted across North America — and a year after FIFA opened an office in Miami. FIFA boss Gianni Infantino on Tuesday thanked Trump, whom he described as “a big fan of soccer,” as well as the president’s son, Eric, for their “big support.” Eric Trump joined Infantino and Brazilian football legend Ronaldo as they announced the trophy for the Club World Cup would be on display at Trump Tower until the competition’s final, at nearby MetLife Stadium, on Sunday. Infantino has visited the White House and the president’s Florida base Mar-a-Lago on multiple occasions this year, as he seeks to build a relationship that will allow the 2026 World Cup to be a success, not tarnished by Trump’s controversial politics. But the ties between FIFA and the American government have attracted criticism. In May, a top human rights organization said it had “grave concerns” about the Trump administration’s border policies affecting the tournament. A country-wide immigration crackdown has sparked fears that some fans risk not being able to travel freely to the World Cup. Human Rights Watch urged Infantino to be “prepared to reconsider the hosting decision” if the safety of fans and players can’t be guaranteed, according to a letter seen by POLITICO in May. However, Infantino has dismissed concerns that the Trump administration’s tough border policies would wreak havoc on the tournament.  Andrew Giuliani, who leads a task force on World Cup preparation for the White House, told POLITICO last month that “the largest World Cup in history will be both secure and welcoming.” Trump appears to be embracing his role in bringing the World Cup to the U.S. In the spring, when the White House issued a ban clamping down on travelers from 19 countries, Trump included a specific carveout for international athletes, coaches and support staff attending the World Cup, Olympics and other high-profile sporting competitions.

FIFA is facing mounting pressure about the 2026 World Cup in North America after a top human rights organization said it has “grave concerns” about the Trump administration’s border policies affecting the tournament. Human Rights Watch urged FIFA President Gianni Infantino to be “prepared to reconsider the hosting decision” if the safety of fans and players can’t be guaranteed, according to a letter seen by POLITICO. The 2026 men’s tournament will be held in the United States, Canada and Mexico, and follows politically controversial tournaments in 2018 in Vladimir Putin’s Russia and in 2022 in Qatar. But as U.S. President Donald Trump cracks down on some foreign arrivals — with tourists even detained at the border on minor grounds — the world’s premier sporting event now risks being overshadowed again by politics. Last week, POLITICO reported that Infantino is in lockstep with Trump behind closed doors, privately telling top football officials that tough border policies would not affect the competition. In the letter dated May 5, Human Rights Watch Director of Global Initiatives Minky Worden told Infantino that FIFA must “establish clear benchmarks and timelines for U.S. immigration policy changes needed to ensure respect for the rights of players, fans, and other participants in the World Cup.” The world football governing body anticipates that as many as 6.5 million people could attend the tournament next summer, with another 3.7 million coming for this summer’s Club World Cup, which will be held entirely in the U.S. For its part, the White House has pledged that World Cup travel will be a smooth process for visiting supporters. “Every part of the U.S. government will be working to ensure that these events are safe and successful, and those traveling to America to watch the competition have a seamless experience during every part of their visit,” Trump said during a World Cup task force event in Washington last week. “It’s going to be very special.” But Human Rights Watch worriedly detailed Trump’s potential visa bans on some countries, the possibility of detention, interrogation and denial of entry at the U.S. border, “prohibitively” long visa waiting times, new laws targeting LGBTQ+ people, and the potential for “chilling limits” on free speech and peaceful protest as policies threatening the competition. “The administration of President Donald Trump has implemented or is planning policies that fundamentally undermine the inclusive spirit of the World Cup and the non-discrimination policies under FIFA’s Statutes,” the organization warned Infantino. It also noted that in FIFA’s own human rights legislation, the football behemoth pledges to take measures to “to promote the protection of human rights” and “apply effective leverage” where it can to strength the promotion of human rights through football. In the letter, Human Rights Watch said that Infantino has “both the responsibility and authority to address the repudiation of human rights commitments at the 2026 World Cup” and demanded a response to the following questions. “What actions is FIFA taking so that the U.S. government will permit players, fans and journalists from around the world to safely attend the 2026 World Cup in the U.S.?” it asked. “What actions does FIFA plan to take in the event any players, fans or journalists are subject to discrimination, wrongful interrogation or arbitrary arrest while in the U.S.?,” it added. “What steps is FIFA taking with the U.S. government and the White House Task Force on The FIFA World Cup 2026 chaired by President Trump to advocate for changes in policies to align with international human rights, FIFA’s Statutes, and FIFA’s Human Rights Policy?” it concluded. FIFA did not provide a response to POLITICO’s request for comment.