2026 FIFA World Cup

[Cornuck]

I'm assuming that there are visa requirements and vetting done for visitors, whether they are a tourist or a 'world cup fan'. Those precautions should be in place - of course, Iranians are in a tough spot, the average visitor is coming to a country that they're at war with. It's a mess.

[Topper]

I looked at a list of the training/home locations for the teams. Only two in Canada, Canada is training in Vancouver, Panama in Alliston Ontario

Iran in Tijuana (which cartel is doing security for them?) along with several other teams basing themselves in Mexico.

Egypt is in Spokane at Gonzaga, Belgum in Seattle.

2026 World Cup base camps

Team Base camp location
Algeria University of Kansas - Lawrence, KS
Argentina Sporting KC Training Centre - Kansas City, KS
Australia Oakland Roots and Soul Sports Club - Alameda, CA
Austria Harder Stadium - Goleta, CA
Belgium Providence Swedish Performance Center & Clubhouse - Renton, WA
Bosnia and Herzegovina RSL Stadium - Sandy, UT
Brazil Columbia Park Training Facility - Morris Township, NJ
Canada National Soccer Development Centre - Vancouver, BC
Cape Verde Waters Sportsplex - Tampa, FL
Colombia Atlas AGA Academy - Guadalajara, MX
DR Congo SaberCats Stadium - Houston, TX
Croatia Episcopal High School - Alexandria, VA
Curaçao Florida Atlantic University - Boca Raton, FL
Czechia Texas Health Mansfield Stadium - Mansfield, TX
Ecuador Columbus Crew Peformance Center - Columbus, OH
Egypt Gonzaga University - Spokane, WA
England Swope Soccer Village - Kansas City, MO
France Bentley University - Waltham, MA
Germany Wake Forest University - Winston Salem, NC
Ghana Bryant University - Smithfield, RI
Haiti Stockton University - Galloway, NJ
Iran Centro Xoloitzcuintle - Tijuana, BC, MX
Iraq Greenbrier Resort - White Sulphur Springs, WV
Ivory Coast Subaru Park - Chester, PA
Japan Vanderbilt Health Training Center - Antioch, TN
Jordan University of Portland - Portland, OR
Mexico Centro de Alto Rendimiento - Mexico City
Morocco Pingry School - Basking Ridge, NJ
Netherlands Kansas City Current Training Facility - Riverside, MO
New Zealand University of San Diego - San Diego, CA
Norway UNC Greensboro - Greensboro, NC
Panama Nottawasaga Resort - Alliston, ON
Paraguay Spartan Soccer Complex - San Jose, CA
Portugal Gardens North County District Park - Palm Beach Gardens, FL
Qatar Westmont College - Santa Barbara, CA
Saudi Arabia Q2 Stadium - Austin, TX
Scotland Atrium Health Performance Park - East Charlotte, NC
Senegal Rutgers University - Piscataway, NJ
South Africa Universidad del Futbol y Ciencias del Deportes - Pachuca, MX
South Korea Chivas Verde Valle - Guadalajara, MX
Spain Baylor School - Chattanooga, TN
Sweden Toyota Stadium - Frisco, TX
Switzerland San Diego Jewish Academy - San Diego, CA
Tunisia Rayados Training Centre - Monterrey, MX
Turkey Arizona Athletic Grounds - Mesa, AZ
USA Great Park - Irvine, CA
Uruguay Mayakoba Training Centre - Playa del Carmen, MX
Uzbekistan Children's Healthcare of Atlanta Training Ground - Marietta, GA

[UWSaint]

I'm assuming that there are visa requirements and vetting done for visitors, whether they are a tourist or a 'world cup fan'. Those precautions should be in place - of course, Iranians are in a tough spot, the average visitor is coming to a country that they're at war with. It's a mess.

The Trump administration imposed some kind of crazy $$ figure for a tourist visa (not sure which countries the US requires issued tourist visas from), but it was effectively a deposit. You get the money back when you leave the country. A nice incentive to not overstay, but at the same time a huge inconvenience and barrier to tourism. Policy tradeoffs and what not.

At any rate, I heard they were waiving that refundable fee for World Cup fans.

This sentence, "the average visitor is coming to a country that they're at war with" really made me pause. The fact that *any* foreign national would be allowed into a country their nation is at war with is exceptional. And maybe you make exceptions -- journalists, refugees, etc. -- but sports tourism has to be pretty low on the list of exceptions. To the extent there are accommodations made, it is extraordinary of the host to do so -- and its extraordinary to the visitor that they wouldn't fear going to the country bombing their own.

Personally, I am not a fan of this war (though I think there are fair arguments in favor of it, they don't persuade me). Personally, I'd prefer a world where people can watch their nations compete in these international tournaments (all the better for the US given the ticket prices.....). But I think the way Per frames this issue sidesteps the what everyone's common sense ought to tell them: it would be an extraordinary exception to the way societies clash and default dispositions for a nation to welcome foreign nationals from nations they are at war with, and to treat them the same as foreign nationals who come from noncombatant nations or to be expected to implement exhaustive and costly background procedures (recognizing a heightened risk) so that the visitors can catch a soccer game.

[Per]

Not sure how they are going to solve that one. Including facilitating travel for their fans.

Ask the Russian fans.

Russia is not participating in this World Cup, but Iran has qualified and FIFA has confirmed that all teams that have qualified for the tournament should be allowed to participate. And as a host nation the USA has pledged to facilitate access for the fans. We’ll just have to see if they live up to that.

I know Russia’s “not participating” — quite the euphemism (fifa barred them). You missed my point. I’m just having trouble finding your posts expressing concern for their fans. Or an explanation for why FIFA ought to conduct foreign policy, and if they do so, why would they allow some bad actors (Iran) and not others (Russia), or why the United States ought to forego internal security concerns that undergird travel restrictions because of FIFA.

Iran hasn’t invaded anyone. And the current war they’re involved in has the USA as the aggressor, so if anyone should be banned because of that it would be the USA. But I don’t think anyone is advocating for that.

And the USA signed an agreement with FIFA to host the tournament and to help accommodate all the qualifying teams and their fans.

Pacta sunt servanda.

As for russia, I am all for a total isolation and boycott of them until they withdraw their troops from Ukraine and stop invading their neighbours. That would include trade, sports, cultural exchange, travel, you name it. The level of war crimes they commit is really on par with Nazi Germany or Stalin led Soviet Union.

The good news is that the Council of Europe (not to be confused with the European Council, which is part of the EU government) together with Australia and Costa Rica have signed up to a special tribunal to prosecute russian President Vladimir Putin for the crime of aggression against Ukraine. So this is happening!

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2026 ... imir-putin

The Council of Europe is a peace organization which has been open for all European countries, but after the invasion of Ukraine russia and Belarus have been kicked out for violating the statutes of the organization.

The international organizations for swimming and gymnastics have announced that they will allow russian athletes to compete. In response several European countries have withdrawn from hosting competitions organized by these organizations.

The support for Ukraine is solid here and the only way to resolve the conflict is for russia to withdraw their troops from the internationally recognized borders of Ukraine. Until that happens there can be no normalization of relations with them. The EU has already passed legislation that any russian who has fought in Ukraine will be permanently barred from visiting the EU.

At present we consider russia the equivalent of Nazi Germany and there will be no fraternizing with them.
They are a terrorist state and there can be no amnesty for their war crimes. That’s non-negotiable.

Now, I don’t really feel this discussion belongs in the FIFA thread, but you kept poking me, so I had to respond.

My message for ”the russian fans”:
Get rid of Putin, withdraw all troops from Ukrainian territory, and we’ll welcome you back with open arms.

For comparison, after WW2 Germany was not allowed to compete in the 1948 Olympics, but were allowed back in in 1952.
They were also blocked from competing in the 1950 FIFA World Cup.

[UWSaint]

Not sure how they are going to solve that one. Including facilitating travel for their fans.

Ask the Russian fans.

Russia is not participating in this World Cup, but Iran has qualified and FIFA has confirmed that all teams that have qualified for the tournament should be allowed to participate. And as a host nation the USA has pledged to facilitate access for the fans. We’ll just have to see if they live up to that.

I know Russia’s “not participating” — quite the euphemism (fifa barred them). You missed my point. I’m just having trouble finding your posts expressing concern for their fans. Or an explanation for why FIFA ought to conduct foreign policy, and if they do so, why would they allow some bad actors (Iran) and not others (Russia), or why the United States ought to forego internal security concerns that undergird travel restrictions because of FIFA.

Iran hasn’t invaded anyone. And the current war they’re involved in has the USA as the aggressor, so if anyone should be banned because of that it would be the USA. But I don’t think anyone is advocating for that.

And the USA signed an agreement with FIFA to host the tournament and to help accommodate all the qualifying teams and their fans.

Pacta sunt servanda.

On the first point, whether Iran’s funding of terrorists who attack us installations and/or us allies and us and/or us allies merchant shipping (aka Houthi piracy) is aggressive and can legitimately justify a military response is beyond the scope of this thread. This thread is about the World Cup. The question regarding the World Cup is in part a question of fifa picking and choosing politics, and should they (I started another thread on this topic awhile back arguing no).

You’ve responded by substantively comparing a thing you think Russia is and you say Iran is not, and therefore suggest fifa is right to treat Russia and Iran differently. This sidesteps the question of whether fifa should be making political distinctions; sidesteps questions of other pertinent similarities on which political judgments could be made (both are bad actors, or do you not agree?). Why would we draw the line at aggression? And why if we did shouldn’t fifa ban the United States, which for better or worse will always be an aggressor because it is the one country in the world that must occasionally use violence in order to maintain open seas, open air, open commerce, mitigate the rise of empires that would end those things, provide the safe space for Europeans and Canadians to (sometimes reasonably) tut tut about the US while enjoying its protection, etc. Use of force, world policemen stuff or greater, is the burden of being a superpower.

But really, your *instinct* that the US shouldn’t be banned is evidence that your line is not FIFA should ban aggressive countries from competition but not other countries. So what is the principle, Per?

I’m really not sure what agreement the US has with FIFA—a link would be nice to the full agreement, if you have it. That’s the only way that I could look at what was actually agreed to, what was aspirational language and what’s enforceable, force majuere clauses, etc. I don’t put a ton of weight into what people says it says when they are trying to make their point or report on complainers saying the same. I know fifa has agreements with each of the hosting cities; I’m not sure what the agreement is with the government of the United States. I’m not saying there’s not one, I am simply saying I haven’t seen it. You have to see it to know whether the assertion (that the us has to open its borders to Iranians) is a promise the is made or whether it has caveats or is limited. (I know that the us has expedited the visa process for World Cup fans—I assume this was because of a promise to do so).

But your Latin phrase aside and without seeing the contract, there are a few more pertinent principles of contract law. One, contractual provisions that are against public policy are not enforceable. Any purported contractual obligation that, say, relinquishes a nation’s right to control its borders against a nation it is at war with that isnt ratified by treaty generally isn’t an enforceable obligation. Two, non parties to a contract generally do not have standing to enforce that contract. Fans didn’t sign the deal, they didn’t pay consideration to enter the deal, they will get nowhere if the us doesn’t open its borders. FIFA is only economically damaged to the extent they can prove they would have been in a better position had the contract been performed. Three, when you enter a contract, you are not obligated to perform. You are obligated to perform or to put the counterparty in the position they would have been in had you performed.

And so people and countries sometimes will not perform or will underperform contracts when they think the cost of performing is more than the cost of making the counter party whole. This happens all the time, and keeps me in business.