The World Cup of More: A…

Mae West, the bold American actress and icon, famously quipped: “If a little is great, and a lot is better, then way too much is just about right!”

Step into the world of the 2026 World Cup: a showcase of unparalleled extravagance.

In many respects, this summer’s tournament isn’t about new experiences. Yes, it marks the first time three nations will co-host and features an expanded 48 teams. However, as the tournament approaches, the narratives surrounding it focus on sheer scale—everything is simply… more.

“It’s challenging to find a precedent for this one,” remarked Tim Sisk, a historian, author, and professor at the University of Denver, well-versed in global sports precedents. He sighed, “This one brings an added layer of complexity, to say the least.”

That may be an understatement. The narrative leading up to this World Cup mirrors a distinctly American ethos: The U.S. has monopolized attention (with neighboring countries Canada and Mexico also hosting), amplifying everything into a spectacle beyond imagination. Remember that movie trailer voice? You’ve NEVER seen anything like this!

Frankly, we haven’t.

Ticket costs? Previous World Cups have faced scrutiny over accessibility and pricing, but has any ever seen final match tickets soar to over $40,000 before kickoff? Are we witnessing charges that prompted local authorities to investigate possible ticket fraud via FIFA’s revamped ticketing platform (which, by the way, nets FIFA a commission from original sales and secondary market transactions)?

Has any country’s leader ever candidly stated, “I wouldn’t pay it either, to be honest?”

Simply put: no.

And what of immigration and visa challenges for international fans and players? While not a new issue, the context is unprecedented in the U.S., currently facing widespread civil protests, targeted violent actions against foreigners, and increased phone checks for visitors seeking anti-government posts while enforcing severe entry restrictions for citizens from four participating nations.

The same goes for travel concerns; traversing a vast country can be challenging. But in addition to delays, this World Cup faces rampant gas price inflation affecting air travel, and unfolds within a nation plagued by a security agency grappling with critical staffing shortages and a transportation network that frequently falters, particularly during summer storms.

Let’s not forget the matter involving Iran and the ongoing debate over their participation. Have qualified teams previously skipped World Cups? Absolutely, mostly in history when long overseas travel wasn’t feasible for many federations. But this differs because a qualifying nation finds itself engaged in military conflict with host countries. That circumstance is unprecedented.

“The situation has been extremely challenging for the players,” a former official from Iran’s soccer federation shared with ESPN. “Competing in a World Cup is their aspiration. But not under these conditions.”

Criticism of World Cup hosts is nothing new. Issues such as human rights, economic implications, and cultural biases have overshadowed tournaments in places like Russia and Qatar. Yet, this feels more pronounced because the U.S. frames itself as exceptionally different from the rest.

“Earlier, we witnessed protests, boycotts, and significant internal tensions—these are the usual concerns,” Sisk noted. “However, to see such division and potential human rights issues arising from a democracy, particularly the world’s largest supposed democracy, is where the real distinction lies compared to previous events.”

It’s important to note that many of these challenges stem from the current landscape of doing business in the U.S., but the advantages of hosting a World Cup in North America are undeniable.

No fears of squandering public funds on unused venues here; the “white elephants” seen in other nations will be absent. Recall the arena in Brazil‘s capital, which eventually transformed into a $900 million bus depot due to lack of post-tournament use? That likely won’t be the case with SoFi Stadium. The venues in this World Cup, predominantly modern NFL stadiums, are designed specifically for such major events.

Alcohol? It’s legally available at stadiums and fan zones. Accommodation? Spectators won’t have to endure shipping container camps like those in Qatar, since there’s an abundance of lodgings (although pricey). Transportation? Admittedly mixed; where it excels—like in Philadelphia, where fans can return home on subway for free—it’s impressive.

Where it falters? We revert to the “oversized” notion, with New York spectators facing train fares nearing $100 for an 18-mile round trip to the Meadowlands in New Jersey, representing nearly a 700% increase from the typical $13 fare.

In response to ongoing concerns, FIFA President Gianni Infantino quickly shifts discussions to the $871 million earmarked for teams this summer, including a minimum of $12.5 million allocated to every qualifying nation. For smaller nations such as Haiti, Curacao, or Cape Verde, these funds are substantial, enabling long-term investments into grassroots soccer.

Moreover, FIFA anticipates a record budget of nearly $14 billion for its next four-year cycle, most of which Infantino claims is reinvested into soccer initiatives globally. His tenure at FIFA is largely based on channeling resources to as many national federations as possible, a strategy that has, coincidentally, ensured his continued influence in FIFA’s structure, wherein each nation holds one vote. The success of the men’s World Cup remains pivotal to this operation.

Returning to the familiar query: Have we encountered this before? Has Infantino, who often operates with the authority of a head of state, spent previous World Cup cycles fawning over controversial world leaders hosting FIFA events? Certainly. Just a few years back, he lauded Vladimir Putin’s “professionalism,” stating, “We all fell in love with Russia” during the 2018 World Cup.

But has he ever done so as blatantly as he has with U.S. President Donald Trump? That’s up for debate, though many may point to the rapid establishment of a FIFA Peace Prize—devoid of clear criteria or voting processes—awarded to Trump just months prior to the U.S. military action against Iran as a telling sign.

“Everything will improve,” a tournament organizer claimed recently, “once the matches begin.”

That mantra often resurfaces during large, complex events like the World Cup or Olympics. The games typically prevail. This was true in Qatar and Russia previously, and it will likely be the same here. Come Thursday, as this tournament commences at the Estadio Azteca in Mexico City, the wonder and allure of the world’s favorite sport will shine through, captivating us all.

We’ll witness Lionel Messi leading the defending champions, Cristiano Ronaldo striving to conjure his former brilliance, the U.S. boasting perhaps its strongest roster ever, and England aiming to finally achieve their long-sought triumph. Underdogs like Colombia and Ecuador aspire to deliver stunning surprises, alongside rising stars such as Spain‘s Lamine Yamal making his mark on the grand stage.

Anticipate incitements of magic, goals, upsets, drama, and spectacle.

This World Cup could very well be the most significant one in history—on all fronts.