The United States is co-hosting the ongoing FIFA men’s World Cup with Canada and Mexico amid reports of strict visa scrutiny and entry denials affecting some participants, including match officials, players and media personnel. Among them was a Somali FIFA referee reportedly refused entry after a US official alleged he had communicated with “some very bad people,” presumably terrorists. While every sovereign nation has a legitimate duty to protect its borders and ensure security, should FIFA give greater consideration to such realities when selecting future host nations?
No one should dismiss the security concerns surrounding global sporting events. Major competitions have been targeted in the past, including the 1972 Munich Olympics attack, the 2009 assault on the Sri Lankan cricket team in Pakistan and the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing. While governments rarely disclose the reasons for denying entry, such restrictions can affect participants and supporters alike. A successful World Cup depends on broad international access and restrictive procedures inevitably raise concerns about fairness and inclusion.
When FIFA evaluates hosting bids, it already scrutinises infrastructure, stadium readiness, organisational capacity and finances. Security risks should receive greater weight in the selection process. Countries facing elevated terrorist threats are often compelled to impose stringent entry controls to protect participants and spectators. While understandable, such measures can also limit access for legitimate visitors. The difficulties witnessed during the current World Cup should serve as a lesson for future host selections. FIFA must consider whether prospective hosts can maintain security while preserving accessibility for accredited tournament stakeholders.
FIFA likely already incorporates security and terrorism assessments into its bid evaluations. What it may not fully consider is the extent to which elevated threat levels can translate into restrictive entry measures. One solution would be to establish a risk threshold beyond which bids become ineligible. FIFA should assess not only the probability of threats but also their impact on travel, visas, and participant mobility. Bidding nations should demonstrate how they will facilitate access for players, officials, supporters, and media. The integrity of fair competition depends on protecting these principles.
The words on a New Zealand player’s armband read, “Football Unites the World” – a fitting reminder of an ideal this World Cup is struggling to uphold. Excessive barriers to participation risk undermining the very purpose of the tournament. FIFA should learn from the challenges emerging during the current competition and ensure they are not repeated in future editions. If it fails to address these concerns, then perhaps FIFA itself deserves to be shown a red card.
