Why super-sized and politicised World Cup comes at a cost

"Simply the greatest event that humanity, that mankind, has ever seen".

The words of Fifa president Gianni Infantino when hailing this summer's World Cup across the United States of America, Mexico and Canada.

Never afraid to hype football's showpiece event, the head of the world governing body has portrayed the first pan-continental version as the most inclusive, welcoming and unifying to date.

But many others would choose different superlatives.

The most politicised, for instance. And the most expensive. Potentially the hottest, or the most polluting. Certainly the most lucrative for Fifa.

Whatever one's perspective, it seems certain that away from the on-field spectacle, this super-sized World Cup could be among the most contentious ever.

From controversy over the costs to fans, the impact of geopolitics and immigration policies, to security, extreme weather, sustainability and the role of US President Donald Trump, it inspires trepidation as well as excitement.

So what will be the principle issues? How did we get here? And what is at stake?

As the eyes of the footballing world focus on Mexico City before Thursday's opening match, the co-hosts provide a vivid snapshot of what makes the next few weeks so compelling and challenging.

Here in this footballing hotbed, a city that has provided the tournament with some of its most iconic moments, the legendary Estadio Azteca is ready to make history as the first venue to host the start of three different World Cups.

It is a tantalising prospect. But just as in the neighbouring US, where around 75% of the matches will take place, the high cost of tickets has caused concern, as has security in a country that has suffered from major cartel violence this year.

World Cup player statues in the capital have been toppled by protesters, with teachers demanding higher wages threatening to disrupt matches if their wishes are not met.

Meanwhile, in Tijuana, the presence of the Iran squad is a consequence of the complex political tensions surrounding the sporting action.

No other World Cup has been spread over three countries. Nor has it involved as many as 48 teams and 104 matches.

But beyond its sheer scale, this tournament is unprecedented in other ways. Never before, for instance, has a host country been at war with a participating nation.

Just last month, Fifa confirmed the Iran team had moved its base from Arizona to Mexico, the latest result of the military campaign launched in February, when the US and Israel attacked Iran, sparking retaliatory strikes across the Middle East. While a ceasefire came into effect in early April, strikes between the two sides have continued.

In the past few months, confusion has surrounded Iran's participation, with President Trump at one stage warning it was not "appropriate" for the team to participate "for their own life and safety". His special envoy even suggested that Iran should be replaced by four-time winners Italy, who had failed to qualify.

Iran now look set to take part in a fourth consecutive World Cup, although the country has accused the US of denying visas to some executives and backroom staff, with an official claiming the players had been told they must enter and leave the US on the same day of their three group matches there. Iran's embassy in Turkey also accused the US of "politically-biased interference in sport".

With Fifa reportedly set to ban the pre-revolutionary Iran flag from tournament venues, their games will be politically charged, especially with the first two taking place in Los Angeles, home to a large Persian community.

Eight years ago, Fifa awarded the 2026 World Cup to United States, Mexico and Canada as it was trying to recover from the existential corruption scandal sparked by the hugely controversial votes in 2010 for Russia and Qatar to stage the tournament in 2018 and 2022.

With both those countries forced to deny allegations of bribery, a World Cup in North America must have seemed much less risky, with stadium infrastructure already in place.

The other major attraction was financial. Fuelled by multi-billion dollar broadcasting and sponsorship deals, the expanded tournament in the world's most commercialised sports market will be the most lucrative event in sports history, with Fifa set to make a record $9bn (£6.74bn) this year alone.

Such riches will enable it to redistribute $2.7bn to the national football associations over the next four years. That helps the game's global development and will increase the chances of Infantino winning a third re-election next year.

But controversy over the way in which much of this money is being generated has defined much of the build-up to the World Cup.

Back in 2018, those behind the bid said tickets to the final would cost a maximum of $1,550 (£1,174). However, when they went on sale to members of each country's official supporters' club in December, the most expensive was listed at $8,680 (£6,581).

The costs were described as a "monumental betrayal" by a leading supporters' group and Fifa then announced a small number of $60 (£45) tickets. But the pricing strategy, and the first use at a World Cup of 'dynamic pricing' - with fees dependent on demand and timing - sparked a major backlash, along with fears that many of the most passionate and loyal supporters could be priced out.

On the official resale platform, fans faced paying vastly inflated prices, with Fifa taking a 30% fee from each ticket sold.

Last month, officials in New York and New Jersey officially launched an investigation, with Fifa facing allegations of "artificially inflating prices" and "misleading fans" over ticket sales.

Fifa has referenced the spending power of US consumers and talked up the demand, claiming more than five million tickets have been bought, and that the event would be sold out.

Yet BBC Sport has found thousands of tickets for matches involving the smaller nations are available well below face value across both Fifa's own resale site and secondary marketplaces. It has also been accused of dumping inventory it now cannot sell on SeatGeek.

There has been dismay at other costs too. Train tickets normally priced at $12.90 (£9.50), from central New York to the nearby Met Life stadium in New Jersey (where the final will be staged) were ramped up to $150 (£111), before being reduced to $98 (£73), with the New Jersey governor blaming Fifa for refusing to subsidise transport expenditure.

Mood among fans worsened last week when Fifa said they would not be allowed to take reusable water bottles into venues because of safety concerns, in a late policy change that many believed was down to commercial reasons.

With temperatures at 14 of the 16 host venues set to exceed dangerous levels according to researchers, there were fears this bottle ban could put fans' health at risk. Amid a major outcry from supporter groups and politicians, Fifa backed down, permitting fans to take in sealed, disposable water bottles after all.

Thirty two years ago, the first World Cup to be staged in the US helped propel the sport into the mainstream. Now, with a well-established domestic league, and US investment throughout the European game, hopes are high for another big step forward.

"In 1994 the soccer market was very nascent in the US, and today we have thriving professional leagues, and some of the world's great stadiums," US Soccer chief executive JT Batson told BBC Sport. "This summer is an incredible opportunity for us to transform what soccer looks like in America."

But according to a recent poll, a majority of people in the US feel it is too expensive, external for the average American to attend a game at the tournament.

With a recent survey of hotels revealing that bookings were well below expectations in almost every host city, there is a growing sense that the record costs, along with the political backdrop, has been a deterrent.

"There will have been a lot of people priced out of it," Thomas Concannon, leader of the Football Supporters' Association England fan group, told BBC Sport. Between 12,000 and 15,000 England fans will be at each of the team's three group matches in Dallas, Boston and New Jersey.

"It feels like those numbers are a little bit disappointing given the excitement that was building up. We thought there would be more."

Back in 2017, during Trump's first term, Infantino had suggested a US travel ban on citizens from six majority-Muslim countries was incompatible with tournament regulations, and could invalidate the country's hopes to host the tournament in 2026.

"It's obvious when it comes to Fifa competitions, any team, including the supporters and officials of that team, who qualify for a World Cup need to have access to the country, otherwise there is no World Cup," he warned.

And yet, as a result of the immigration policies implemented by Trump during his second term in office, there will be four competing countries - Iran, Haiti, Senegal and Ivory Coast - whose fans have faced full or partial travel bans, with the White House referencing a need to manage security threats.

In fact, analysis of travel data by the BBC shows that fans from more than a quarter of the 48 countries taking part in the World Cup are facing travel bans, tighter restrictions or high visa rejection rates.

It was only last month that visitors from Algeria, Senegal, Ivory Coast, Cape Verde and Tunisia were granted exemptions from having to pay a deposit of up to $15,000 (£11,000) before obtaining a US visa.

At the weekend, the International Sports Press Association complained about "a long-standing and unacceptable problem for us journalists - the denial of entry visas to regularly accredited colleagues".

And on Monday, Fifa said that Omar Artan, who was set to be the first Somalian to referee at the World Cup finals, had been dropped from the list of officials after he was denied entry to the US. No reason was issued by US immigration authorities, but Somalia is one of several countries on a travel ban list introduced by the Trump administration.

"This is a tournament where players, fans, and officials are not walking in free of risk, if they can get in at all," according to Craig Foster, a former captain of Australia's 'Socceroos', and now a rights campaigner.

"For a sport that has trumpeted its commitment to its own human rights policy for a decade now, that is nothing short of disgraceful.

"This should obliterate the idea, that has still been somewhat prevalent in the world, of a separation between politics and sport. Unlike any other sporting tournament I can recall in modern times, this is a deeply politicised World Cup."

Since taking power in 2016, Infantino has regularly cosied up to the leaders of countries hosting his events. But his controversial awarding of a Fifa Peace Prize to Trump at the World Cup draw last year underlined the close relationship he has forged with the US president.

Since then, the US has taken military action in Venezuela, Nigeria and Iran, with Trump hinting at possible operations in Greenland, Mexico, and another World Cup participant, Colombia.

There have also been tensions between the three co-hosts on trade, immigration and drug-trafficking. Indeed, only last week, the president referred to Canada as "the 51st state", although there are also hopes that the tournament could provide an opportunity for diplomacy.

To add to the mix, the US is celebrating the 250th anniversary of America's independence, with Trump expected to take centre stage at the tournament, just as he did at the Club World Cup final last year, and then at the World Cup draw in December.

After both Russia and Qatar were accused of exploiting the past two World Cups in a bid to improve their reputations, Human Rights Watch claims this summer's event will be a "bonanza of 'sportswashing"., external Amnesty has also said it risks becoming "a stage for repression",, external highlighting "abusive, discriminatory and deadly immigration enforcement and mass detention in the USA", and warning of "significant risks" to those attending.

Much of the scrutiny has centred on the role of the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), with the agency part of the overall security apparatus for the event. Earlier this year, ICE agents shot and killed two American citizens as part of an immigration crackdown in Minneapolis.

In response to such criticism, the White House's World Cup Task Force has vowed that the tournament will be "the safest, and most welcoming sporting event in history" and that it was working to deliver an event "that highlights America's hospitality, commitment to security, and spirit of excellence".

Just weeks ago, White House officials warned that the reopening of the Department of Homeland Security - responsible for much of the security operation at the tournament - was "essential" after a man was charged with attempting to assassinate Trump at an event in Washington DC.

A dispute over funding between members of Congress had led to a long-running partial shutdown of the department. It has now officially ended, but it exposed some of the challenges facing officials.

"This entire country's police force is leaning in," Andrew Giuliani, head of the White House World Cup Task Force, told ESPN last week., external

"It is an unbelievable problem set when I think about what local law enforcement is going to have to do over this 40-day stretch. It is unprecedented. We're going to do everything in our power to make sure that nothing goes wrong."

Giuliani said that he and other security planners had been "planning with one hand tied behind our back" due to the shutdown, saying "we are still plugging a few of those holes".

As if the task was not challenging enough, authorities must now contend with mounting concerns over the outbreak of Ebola, centred on the Democratic Republic of Congo. The country's team has matches in Houston, Atlanta and Guadalajara.

A US State Department spokesperson confirmed that the US was co-ordinating an approach "to protect our citizens, including the millions of visitors, fans, athletes and tourists expected during the Fifa World Cup".

Fifa has pledged to reduce its carbon emissions by 50% by 2030, and to reach net-zero by 2040. Playing all of this World Cup's matches at existing stadia helps with such ambitions. But expanding the tournament to such an extent does not, with aviation accounting for 80-90% of its carbon footprint.

Indeed, environmentalists claim it will be "the most climate-damaging" in the event's history, with the high reliance on air travel meaning it will generate more than nine million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent - almost double the average for the past four World Cups.

In their original bid book, the three prospective host nations unveiled a preliminary estimate of 3.6m tonnes of CO2e, referencing hopes that it would "establish new standards for environmental sustainability in sport".

Just weeks ago, a group of world-leading scientists warned Fifa that its current heat safety measures for the World Cup were "inadequate" and could put players at risk of serious harm.

Fifa says it is "committed to protecting the health and safety of players, referees, fans, volunteers and staff" and that climate-related risks are all assessed.

But there is set to be intense scrutiny on the impacts of extreme weather, including the long delays if matches are halted due to electrical storms - Saudi Arabia's warm-up match against Puerto Rico in Texas on 6 June was stopped for nearly two hours - and whether Fifa may be contributing to the problem.

Back in May, Infantino spoke of his excitement at the economic potential of football in the US, noting that it accounts for only 3%, external of the game's global GDP, representing a massive trillion-dollar growth opportunity for investors.

The coming weeks will determine if this sporting and commercial phenomenon finally breaks America.

Or whether the tournament itself risks being broken by the costs and politics that swirl around it.

The stage is set for the sport's biggest stars to shine. But it could also show just how much expansion and inflation the game - and those that follow it - are willing to accept.