By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Removing the United States as a co-host for the 2026 World Cup would be a logistical, financial, and political disaster, though entirely justifiable given the current state of the nation. The US has been preparing to showcase soccer’s growth, yet exorbitant ticket prices and government actions are threatening the sport’s core values. The article questions whether the US can be trusted to provide a safe environment for the tournament due to federal violence, disregard for truth, and a divisive political climate. In light of the current administration’s actions, the author posits that the World Cup’s presence in the US is at odds with the message of peace and unity the sport attempts to convey.
Read the original article here
Removing the US as World Cup host would be eminently sad – and entirely justified. This is a complex situation, isn’t it? On one hand, the prospect of the World Cup being removed from the US, especially for fans and those involved in the sport, would undoubtedly be a disappointment. Many would be saddened by the loss of the opportunity to experience the tournament on home soil, to see their teams play, and to enjoy the global camaraderie that the World Cup brings. For some, it represents a culmination of years of supporting their teams and perhaps even a personal investment of time and money. It would be a blow, a missed chance, a lost party.
Yet, despite this potential sadness, the reasons why such a removal would be justified are glaring and, quite frankly, overwhelming. We’re talking about FIFA, an organization with a reputation for corruption so deep-rooted it seems to permeate every level. They’ve demonstrated a blatant disregard for ethical conduct, human rights, and even basic decency in their selection of host countries. The decisions of where to hold the World Cup appear, at times, to be based more on financial gain and political maneuvering than on any genuine commitment to fair play or the well-being of the people involved. Let’s not forget the “peace prize” handed to a former president as if this sport organization actually cares about anything other than profit.
Think about the precedent set by previous World Cups, the controversy of Qatar and Russia and the upcoming Saudi Arabia. The US, at the moment, with everything that’s going on, is a place where many question the safety and human rights record. Now let’s add in the potential for mass protests and political statements within the matches, perhaps the lack of visitors, and a world that is frankly sick of America’s internal turmoil, the situation starts to unfold why it would be justified.
Considering the current climate, and given the international perception of the United States, it’s not unreasonable to question whether it’s a suitable host. Concerns about civil unrest, potential infringements on human rights, and the overall political environment are valid reasons to reconsider this decision. Some are concerned about the government agencies. The truth is, people are asking if it’s safe to travel there, and if you are a fan, should you go?
The argument that FIFA cares more about money than morals certainly holds weight. They’ve shown a willingness to overlook human rights abuses in other host countries, so why wouldn’t they do the same here? It’s a sad reality, but it’s one we must acknowledge. The prospect of the World Cup being held in a country that’s actively struggling with its own internal conflicts and facing global condemnation is not only questionable, it’s also potentially dangerous for those attending.
The scale of the tournament adds another layer of complexity. With the expanded format, hosting becomes an even greater challenge. Logistically, it’s a huge undertaking, requiring massive infrastructure and coordination. Even if the US could meet the requirements, the political and social climate would overshadow the spectacle. Perhaps, the thought of this World Cup being a huge protest opportunity is the highlight of the situation.
There’s also the matter of symbolism. Holding the World Cup in a country that is perceived to be failing to uphold democratic values sends a disturbing message. It legitimizes actions and policies that should be condemned. It normalizes behavior that is harmful and sets a dangerous precedent for future hosts. And so many Americans might not realize how bad it is and the global perception of it, so it might be a good thing.
In the end, while removing the US as a host would undoubtedly disappoint fans and the football community, the reasons for doing so are compelling. It’s a matter of prioritizing ethics, safety, and human rights over financial gain and political expediency. It’s a difficult decision, but it’s one that might be necessary to uphold the integrity of the sport and the values it purports to represent. Ultimately, the possibility of a world free from the US and all of its associated problems is something many will find rather enjoyable.