The 2026 FIFA World Cup in the United States, Canada, and Mexico has exposed serious tensions between FIFA’s stated human‑rights and transparency standards and the reality of domestic policies, particularly in the USA under President Donald Trump. Training raids and aggressive immigration enforcement by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), alongside weak or absent host‑city human‑rights action plans, raise substantial concerns about the tournament’s compliance with global sports‑governance norms, especially for migrant fans, workers, and journalists.
ICE operations and the threat to fans and migrants
US Immigration and Customs Enforcement has increasingly framed itself as a central player in security planning for the 2026 World Cup. In early 2026, ICE Director Henry Lyons told reporters that his agency would play a “key role” in the tournament, reinforcing fears that fan‑gathering spaces and major‑event zones could become hunting grounds for immigration‑based arrests. This comes after a series of highly publicised ICE raids under President Trump, including cases in which citizens were accidentally killed, prompting national protests and calls for accountability.
In late 2025, Human Rights Watch highlighted an incident in which an asylum seeker who brought his children to the Club World Cup final in Florida was later arrested and removed by ICE, a case that drew sharp attention to the risks faced by non‑citizen attendees at FIFA events on US soil. Amnesty International’s 2026 report, Humanity Must Win: Defending rights, tackling repression at the 2026 FIFA World Cup*, argues that the USA’s current immigration regime—characterised by mass detentions, arbitrary arrests, and the deployment of masked federal agents—creates a “human rights emergency” that directly clashes with FIFA’s branding of the World Cup as a safe space for all.
FIFA’s human‑rights promises versus host‑city failures
Since awarding the 2026 World Cup to the joint bid of United 2026 (USA, Canada, Mexico), FIFA has positioned the tournament as a turning point in sports‑governance: the first with explicit human‑rights bidding requirements, a Human Rights Strategy, and a binding Human Rights Framework for host cities. Under this framework, all 16 host‑city committees are required to develop Host City Human Rights Action Plans in consultation with local governments, civil society, and community groups.
Yet, two months before kick‑off, Human Rights Watch reported that all but one host‑city committee either failed to produce such plans or published documents that ignore or minimise key risks—including to migrants, LGBT people, and journalists. The organisation’s statement, quoted by The New York Times and other outlets, warns that host cities and FIFA have “sidelined rights” at a moment when robust protections are most needed. Civil‑society groups such as the Dignity 2026 coalition, a network of labour and human‑rights organisations, have long pressed FIFA to publish and enforce the full Human Rights Framework, arguing that without public, binding standards, workers and communities remain vulnerable to abuse.
Labour rights and the legacy of past World Cups
The 2026 tournament is also being watched through the lens of past World Cup labour scandals. As the AFL‑CIO has recalled in statements to the press, earlier World Cups produced low‑wage, unsafe jobs, preventable worker deaths, community displacement, and corruption. In response, United 2026 promised to embed labour rights into its bid, including guarantees that workers can form and join unions and exercise the right to collective bargaining.
However, as the O’Neill Institute’s 2026 labour‑rights project notes, meaningful implementation depends on proactive engagement with unions and community groups across all 16 host cities. So far, however, watchdogs argue that many host‑city committees have treated human‑rights commitments as box‑ticking exercises rather than as lived safeguards for workers, precarious staff at stadiums and fan zones, and local service‑sector employees.
Press freedom and the right to protest
FIFA’s expectations for host nations also extend to freedoms of expression and peaceful assembly, particularly for journalists and civil‑society groups covering the event. Amnesty International’s 2026 report warns that severe restrictions on protest and free expression in the USA—especially where federal agencies such as ICE and Customs and Border Protection operate with broad, opaque powers—could deter critical reporting and limit public scrutiny of the World Cup.
The same concerns echo in Mexico and Canada, where local civil‑society coalitions have documented police‑use‑of‑force and surveillance of dissenters during major‑event‑related protests. Civil‑rights groups argue that a mega‑event promising “inclusion” cannot be squared with practices that treat protest and dissent as security threats rather than legitimate democratic expression.
Sportswashing and the shadow of 2034
The 2026 World Cup is also being interpreted within a broader global debate about sportswashing—the use of major sporting events to launder or distract from problematic domestic policies. Critics point out that the same FIFA that delayed implementation of its Human Rights Framework for 2026 is now considering even more controversial host‑nation environments for future tournaments, including the Saudi‑led 2034 World Cup, for which the United Arab Emirates has publicly backed the bid.
In the case of Saudi Arabia, organisations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have long documented restrictions on freedom of expression, labour‑rights abuses, and opaque governance structures. The 2034 FIFA World Cup bid, and the UAE’s support for it, have therefore intensified scrutiny over whether FIFA’s human‑rights and transparency criteria are being applied consistently or selectively. Advocacy groups argue that visible failures in 2026—such as ICE operations near stadiums and watered‑down host‑city plans—undermine FIFA’s credibility when it comes to holding future hosts, including Saudi Arabia, to higher standards.
What this means for international stakeholders
For international stakeholders, including FIFA’s sponsors, national football associations, and broadcasters, the 2026 World Cup raises uncomfortable questions about complicity. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have urged FIFA and host governments to immediately halt ICE enforcement near matches and fan festivals, and to adopt enforceable protection measures for vulnerable groups.
For fans, civil‑society groups, and human‑rights organisations, the tournament has become a test of whether global sports‑governance can translate into tangible protections on the ground. The Dignity 2026 coalition, the AFL‑CIO, and migrant‑rights networks have all called on FIFA and host‑city committees to publish their Human Rights Framework and to establish independent monitoring mechanisms with real sanctioning power.
A reckoning for ethical hosting
The 2026 World Cup is not just a football tournament; it is a case study in the collision between FIFA’s aspirational standards and the realities of host‑country governance. As the event nears, the visibility of ICE raids, the absence of robust host‑city human‑rights plans, and the ongoing debate over freedom of expression and protest have turned the United States into a focal point for global scrutiny.
If FIFA and its host partners fail to address these concerns, critics warn, the 2026 World Cup risks becoming yet another example of how mega‑events can entrench, rather than expose or correct, human‑rights and governance deficits.