This article first appeared in Forum, The Edge Malaysia Weekly on March 9, 2026 - March 15, 2026
They met to tinker with time wasting and the offside rule: they had no jurisdiction over the World Cup hosts bombing one of the qualifiers. Fifa’s rule makers, IFAB, including president Gianni Infantino, held their annual general meeting at a fairytale castle in Wales. But the grim reality of the new “no rules” world order ensured that it was US President Donald Trump who was the game changer.
The attack on Iran, which is set to play two games in Los Angeles, home to a huge Iranian diaspora, presents Fifa with a bit of a problem. Iran’s retaliation and the subsequent uncertainty into which the world has plunged mean that football’s governing body has no time to waste in drawing up contingency plans for a potential catastrophe. Pandora’s Box has already been prised open.
It is not as if there isn’t much at stake. According to Infantino, the 2026 World Cup, due to kick off 100 days from last Tuesday, will be “the greatest event that humanity, mankind, has ever seen and will ever see. The world will stop”. Sadly, it is already too late for Infantino to have a word with his “great friend”, whose speech and tone he now seems to mimic.
The International Football Association Board, to use IFAB’s full title, can be forgiven for thinking that Infantino had some sway over Trump, given how much time he spends in the Oval Office. Or that the award of that sham of a Peace Prize might have ensured he wouldn’t risk sabotaging the show while it’s in his backyard.
But the timing of the attack put things into perspective. It made a mockery of Fifa’s cosying up to the US president, and turned Infantino into a fawning fool. Trump doesn’t “get” football anyway, as he doesn’t get the concept of sport, fair play, or anything that is not transactional. What he’s done now is give Fifa the biggest headache since the World Cup was founded.
With the last six qualifying places to be decided later this month in a series of play-offs, and many of the million stranded passengers still to leave the Gulf states that were considered safe havens, there is simply no time left. Even before all this, the tournament was crying out for a modern equivalent of the late US secretary of state Henry Kissinger.
Relations between the three hosts have been anything but harmonious. Trump constantly picks on and threatens to annex Canada. And, more seriously, to invade Mexico. Last month’s slaying of a drug lord and subsequent rampage in Guadalajara, a World Cup venue, piqued Trump’s interest in a “punitive” raid from the US. The New York Times commented that Mexico is “stuck between the cartels and Trump”.
He has also been deadly serious about “taking” Greenland, even though it’s a self-governing, autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, a fellow member of Nato. That was enough to spark talk of a boycott from other Nato countries.
But before all this were the added complexities of expanding a global event from 32 (the total for the previous seven) to 48 countries. And then spreading 104 matches around 16 cities in three host nations. Of the trio, Mexico is the only bona fide football country and has hosted it twice before (in 1970 and 1986). The US held the 1994 version.
North America provides some of the best stadiums and infrastructure the world can offer, but the distances are vast, as are the variations in climate. There are several time zones, and the stifling heat, as happened at the Club World Cup last year, can cause games to be suspended. Finding a kick-off time that suits the players, local fans and broadcasters is nigh on impossible, and compromises have to be made. Then there is the question of what sort of welcome the guests will receive.
Never has there been a greater deterrent to visitors to the US than its Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) staff. Armed to the teeth and dressed like thugs, they roam the streets acting like thugs. They are meant to round up illegal immigrants, but have been somewhat overzealous in carrying out their tasks. Being an American citizen proved no defence in two tragic cases in Minneapolis.
Before they get this far, visitors must show five years of social media history. A stray word about the president and you miss out. All that said, Infantino claims 50 million ticket applications in the first month of sale. Insiders say that doesn’t tell the whole story.
World Cup 2026 is a mouthwatering prospect on the field. Apart from the traditional clash between Europe and South America’s heavyweights, two of football’s immortals, Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo, are making their farewell appearances. Minnows Curaçao, Cape Verde, Jordan and Uzbekistan will make their first.
If the cast is stellar, there are quibbles about the home audience: the US and Canada are not football countries and a low-scoring 90 minutes between neutrals may challenge Infantino’s claim that “the world will stop when the World Cup starts”. This is assuming it starts at all.
Now the conflict has widened; people are thinking the unthinkable. With the so-called safe-haven Gulf states not unscathed, airspace limited and no end in sight, the last thing the world needs is thousands of football fans flying to watch the World Cup.
“The show must go on” is bound to be the sentiment among the organisers. After all, the 1972 Munich Olympics was suspended for just 24 hours after 11 Israeli athletes were massacred by Palestinian terrorists in the Olympic village.
For the World Cup, it is already too late for an alternative host. You can’t cram seven years of planning into three months. Spreading it around the globe, with many countries staging a few games, might be possible. But then the logistics of where to play the next round and the next might require a redraw to avert unnecessary travel and circumnavigate shutdown airspace. And who gets the final stages? With or without Iran, it doesn’t bear thinking about. Better to hold it in one place would seem the safest option.
A slimmed-down tournament would not be acceptable either. Countries have spent two years qualifying, and for some, such as the quartet of rookies, it’s a historic achievement they will not relinquish. A postponement might be inevitable. What about the players getting too old? Fans who have bought tickets?
The worry for football is that even if the conflict is somehow concluded relatively quickly and the show does go on, there could still be incidents during the tournament. Even if Trump is able to declare a “victory” in some shape or form, and Iran does not attend, it will be no guarantee that the whole shebang will be spared. On Iran’s participation, Trump has said, “I don’t really care.”
There could be revenge attacks from sleeper cells and lone wolves or the deranged home-grown types that think mass shootings are a kind of sport. There was no guarantee of a peaceful tournament before the killing of Ayatollah Khamenei anyway.
And if the current hostilities threaten the World Cup, Trump will have given Fifa a problem that is “the greatest it has ever seen or ever will see”. And the world will not stop.
Bob Holmes is a long-time sportswriter specialising in football
Save by subscribing to us for your print and/or digital copy.
P/S: The Edge is also available on Apple's App Store and Android's Google Play.