This year’s FIFA World Cup has largely escaped the pitfalls that have tainted prior editions—such as taxpayer-funded stadium projects, the displacement of communities to clear space for venues, and a showcase that can bolster repressive regimes. Held across Canada, the United States, and Mexico, the tournament has, for the most part, sidestepped these concerns, at least on the American side. While not flawless, the combination of using existing arenas and robust protections for free expression has helped curtail the censorship and coercive practices often seen in authoritarian hosts.
Back in 2022, when Qatar hosted the last World Cup, I flagged several problems that needed addressing to prevent the kinds of evils that have accompanied previous Games and Olympics. Let us examine how the United States measures up on each point:
1. No public subsidies. Let the games be financed entirely by private entities and sponsors, as was largely the case with the successful 1984 Los Angeles Olympics. In this way, taxpayers aren’t bearing the costs, and only those who profit—and the audience that chooses to attend or watch—fund the event.
This objective has largely been achieved. The reliance on existing facilities by American host cities substantially eliminates the major incentive to siphon public funds for stadium construction. There have nonetheless been some public outlays for things like traffic control and security. But the core governmental duty to safeguard citizens and manage infrastructure remains a standard responsibility that applies to events of all kinds. While libertarians and other anarchists may dispute this, those debates touch on broader philosophical questions than just sports events.
2. No forcible displacement of residents, private businesses, or civil society organizations. We can stage athletic events without uprooting innocent people from their homes.
On this score, the United States appears to have avoided such displacements entirely. This stands in stark contrast to the records of several past hosts, including Brazil and China.
3. No hosting rights for authoritarian human rights violators. There are numerous possible Olympic venues not controlled by figures like Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, or the Emir of Qatar. Denying these rulers the chance to host would not topple their regimes, but it would tarnish their image and deprive them of propaganda victories.
Even during Trump’s presidency, the United States has not approached the levels of repression seen in Russia, China, or Qatar. My willingness to critique Trump and even participate in a Supreme Court case against him signals a meaningful difference. That said, his harsh and discriminatory immigration policies (which affect both citizens and newcomers) and his assaults on free speech narrow the contrast.
So far, Trump does not appear to have gained significant propaganda value from hosting the Cup, perhaps because his attention is elsewhere.
4. There must be full freedom of speech at all competition venues and in all interactions among athletes, media, and local populations. Athletes, journalists, and spectators should be free to criticize the host government and its policies—or any government, for that matter.
This standard has been largely fulfilled, largely thanks to the First Amendment and strong protections for expression. Seattle deserves recognition for resisting demands from Egyptian and Iranian authorities to suppress Pride events that coincided with a match between those two nations.
Although the Trump Administration’s policy of speech-based deportations and bans cast a shadow over this issue, courts have largely rebuked those measures. To date, there have been no reported expulsions or bans of World Cup participants based on speech, though some fans and a referee have faced other visa-related restrictions.
5. There must be no “public health” measures that block normal human interaction among players, media, and residents of the host city. Such measures would defeat the very purpose of hosting the event in a given country.
This posed a genuine problem for the 2022 Beijing Olympics, but it has not surfaced as a major issue for the 2026 World Cup.
It is worth noting that the World Cup has produced many touching moments of Americans warmly welcoming foreign players and fans, helping to counter some of the xenophobic nationalism that accompanied the Trump era.
In summary, while the United States’ record on the kinds of abuses that have marred past Olympics and World Cups is far from perfect, it is markedly better than in many previous host contexts. The structural corruption that has long plagued FIFA—the body that runs the Cup—remains a concern, including episodes of taxpayer exploitation, coercive displacements to facilitate stadium construction, and deference to authoritarian regimes. There is no assurance that those patterns won’t recur in future tournaments, and the same is true for the International Olympic Committee, which administers the Olympics.
Nevertheless, the present World Cup has demonstrated substantial improvements in several critical areas compared to hosts like Brazil, Russia, and Qatar. It offers a useful reference point from which liberal democracies can press FIFA and the IOC to implement systemic reforms that would permanently prevent such abuses.
