FIFA president Gianni Infantino once drew a clear line in the sand. Back in 2017, he stated publicly that any travel ban preventing national teams, their supporters or officials from entering a host country would be fundamentally incompatible with World Cup regulations. He even suggested it could cost the United States its hosting rights for 2026. Nine years later, that line has been crossed, repeatedly, and Infantino has said nothing of consequence.
Travel bans and visa barriers cast a shadow over the 2026 World Cup
The numbers are stark. BBC analysis of travel data reveals that fans from more than a quarter of the 48 participating nations are currently facing full travel bans, tighter entry restrictions, or historically high visa rejection rates when attempting to enter the United States. Four competing countries, specifically Iran, Haiti, Senegal and Ivory Coast, have supporters confronting full or partial entry bans, justified by the White House on national security grounds.
The practical consequences are already visible. Consider what happened just days before the tournament opened : Omar Artan, who would have become the first Somalian referee to officiate at a World Cup finals, was removed from the list of match officials after US immigration authorities denied him entry. No explanation was provided. Somalia appears on a travel restriction list introduced under the Trump administration’s second term, and that, apparently, was reason enough.
| Country | Status | Category affected |
|---|---|---|
| Iran | Full travel ban | Fans, officials |
| Haiti | Partial travel ban | Fans |
| Senegal | Partial travel ban (exemption granted June 2026) | Fans |
| Ivory Coast | Partial travel ban (exemption granted June 2026) | Fans |
| Somalia | Full travel ban | Officials (referee denied entry) |
Only last month, visitors from Algeria, Senegal, Ivory Coast, Cape Verde and Tunisia received exemptions from a requirement to pay a deposit of up to $15,000 (approximately £11,000) before obtaining a US visa. That deposit policy had been another significant barrier, effectively pricing out supporters from economically disadvantaged nations. The exemptions came late, they came reluctantly, and for many fans, they came too late to make practical travel arrangements.
The International Sports Press Association added its voice to the criticism on the weekend before the tournament, formally complaining about what it called “a long-standing and unacceptable problem” : the systematic denial of entry visas to regularly accredited journalists. Freedom of the press, it seems, is also caught up in the same bureaucratic machinery.
Politics and sport : a separation that no longer holds
Few people have spoken about this situation more directly than Craig Foster, former captain of Australia’s national team and a prominent human rights campaigner in world football. His assessment leaves no room for diplomatic hedging.
“This is a tournament where players, fans, and officials are not walking in free of risk, if they can get in at all,” Foster stated. He went further, describing the situation as “nothing short of disgraceful” for a sport that has publicly championed its own human rights policy for over a decade. His point cuts deep : FIFA has built an entire communications architecture around inclusion, diversity and respect. Hosting a tournament where a quarter of participating nations face entry complications dismantles that narrative entirely.
Foster also made a broader observation worth sitting with : “This should obliterate the idea of a separation between politics and sport.” Unlike any other major sporting event in recent memory, this summer’s showpiece carries an explicitly political weight. Immigration policy, geopolitics and sporting competition are not running in parallel here. They are directly colliding.
- Infantino warned in 2017 that travel bans were incompatible with World Cup regulations
- Over 12 of the 48 competing nations are affected by US entry restrictions
- A $15,000 visa deposit requirement targeted fans from several African nations
- A Somalian referee lost his World Cup appointment due to visa denial
- The International Sports Press Association flagged journalist visa refusals
Frankly, the contrast between Infantino’s 2017 position and FIFA’s current silence is difficult to defend. An organisation that threatened to strip US hosting rights over the very policies now in place has chosen institutional comfort over principle. That is a choice, and it deserves to be named as such.
What this means for the future of major tournament hosting
The 2026 World Cup raises a question that football’s governing bodies will struggle to ignore going forward : what criteria actually matter when awarding a tournament of this scale ? Infrastructure, broadcast revenue and political influence have historically driven host selection. The situation unfolding right now suggests that basic freedom of movement for all participants needs to become a non-negotiable condition, written explicitly into hosting agreements.
If FIFA wants its human rights commitments to mean anything beyond press releases, it needs binding mechanisms, not polite warnings. The Artan case alone, a qualified referee denied his moment in history without explanation or appeal, illustrates exactly what happens when governance frameworks have no teeth. Sporting merit brought him to this World Cup. A bureaucratic decision took it away.
For the millions of fans who will never reach a stadium this summer, the conversation about access, inclusion and the real cost of hosting rights has never been more urgent. The pitch may be neutral ground, but the path to reach it clearly is not.
