Juliet Jacques argues that the 2026 World Cup did not conceal American power through ordinary sportswashing—it displayed that power openly. A tournament promoted as North American unity unfolded amid US threats against its cohosts, war with Iran, border restrictions, and FIFA president Gianni Infantino’s conspicuous deference to Donald Trump.
The compromises reached from geopolitics down to the rules of the spectacle:
- FIFA declined to punish the United States or Israel for wars of aggression while threatening Iran if it withdrew
- Somali referee Omar Artan was denied entry, while Iranian players faced tightly controlled access
- “Hydration breaks” split games into advertiser-friendly quarters
- A Super Bowl-style halftime show stretched the final and drew widespread contempt
- Trump claimed a personal call got US striker Folarin Balogun’s suspension lifted; FIFA offered no explanation
The intervention might have become a full corruption crisis had the United States advanced. Instead Belgium won 4–1, fans booed the Americanized interruptions, and Spain celebrated while Trump and Infantino watched behind bulletproof glass.
The intended imperial showcase became an exposure. Soccer did not need the United States, and FIFA’s concessions produced resentment rather than legitimacy—proof that even a global spectacle cannot reliably convert coercion into admiration.