A tense geopolitical context
The sociologist cites several examples to show this continuity: “The 1934 World Cup that Mussolini exploited”, like Videla’s Argentina in 1978 or the Summer Olympics in Beijing in 2008, used by China to show that it was back among the nations and the international community. The history of world football is therefore also that of its political recovery.
Carole Gomez, doctoral student in sociology of sport at the University of Lausanne, associate researcher at Iris (France), highlights “the unique character of this men’s World Cup, with 48 teamsthree co-organizing countries which had words with each other, notably the President of the United States, Donald Trump, towards his Canadian and Mexican neighbors”, as well as a “particularly tense geopolitical context”. “All the ingredients are there so that we can talk about a lot of things other than football.”
Permanent politicization
The researcher, specializing in the geopolitics of sport, emphasizes that, if there is “really a rise in power of this sporting object”he is “essential to remember that the political issues were also present before”.
And to recall, in particular, the final phase in Brazil, in 2014, “organized in an extremely tense national political context”following the dismissal of President Dilma Rousseff. She was preceded by “monster demonstrations to denounce the mismanagement of the State which, while claiming to no longer have the means to finance public services, was spending billions on the construction of stadiums”.
Another, more positive example, widely commented on then, was that of South Africa in 2010, the first World Cup organized on the African continent. “There is a permanent politicization”, summarizes Claire Gomez, “but which can be expressed differently depending on the editions and countries. This will, in my opinion, be no exception.”.
Without this having any influence, probably, on the sporting competition. “Remember in Qatar, in 2022, all the people who were going to boycott the World Cup…underlines Jean-Michel De Waele. “Nothing concrete happened. And we’re going to iron the dishes in Saudi Arabia in 2034…
A cultural problem
When Gianni Infantino became president of the International Association Football Federation in 2016, following the “Fifa Gate” corruption scandal, “there was a real desire to break with the Sepp Blatter version of Fifa (1998-2015)”. Four areas of reform were then put forward, recalls Carole Gomez: governance, transparency, responsibility and diversity.
“When we take stock of these elements, many have been accomplished”concedes the researcher: the executive committee was effectively replaced by the Fifa council, with more members. But, on other fundamental points, the results are less positive.
“Can we say that the president is less powerful? We can clearly doubt it. On the separation of powers, again, it is written in the statutes, but there have been circumventions.” Likewise, recalls Claire Gomez, regarding the question of the feminization of authorities: the former general secretary Fatma Samoura was isolated before finally resigning at the end of 2023.There have been attempts at structural change but, in the absence of cultural change, these developments have proven ineffective.”
A centralization of power
While the role of FIFA president had been envisaged as that of a simple ambassador, Gianni Infantino centralized power. “At Fifa it flipped”decides Jean-Michel De Waele, estimating that its leader “behaves like a dictator which seems “to be able to decide on his own, as he wants”.
The most glaring example is the awarding of a FIFA Peace Prize, tailor-made for the President of the United States Donald Trump: “a real political position” in the eyes of Jean-Michel De Waele, “a prank”according to Claire Gomez, revealer of “the absence of counter-powers” within the Federation. Only the NGO Fair Square and the Norwegian Federation have contacted the FIFA ethics committee to obtain answers, notes the doctoral student.
Another symptom which raises questions of governance: “the awarding of the 2034 men’s World Cup to Saudi Arabia was announced on social networks, even before a vote by videoconference and by acclamation during a Fifa congress” – a method worthy of a communist congress.
The silence of the federations
The two sociologists are surprised by the silence of the federations, particularly European ones. Jean-Michel De Waele sees in this the sign of a “general resignation in our society, globally”. According to him, reservations could have been formulated by the European federations: “even without calling into question the organization itself, certain positions would have been possible.”
“The boycott question is interesting”underlines Carole Gomez. German deputies have considered a diplomatic boycott in February 2026. In France, several deputies from La France insoumise have also mentioned it for heads of state or government. “This is what Joe Biden did during the Beijing Olympic Games in 2022.she recalls. “This practice has been little used in the context of World Cups, notably in Qatar in 2022″, despite numerous controversies and an investigation by Guardian published in March 2022 on the non-respect of human rights, recalls our interlocutor.
For this 2026 World Cup, Carole Gomez again notes, “there are few initiatives in this direction, despite the tensions linked to Greenland, Venezuela, Iran obviously, relations with Canada, human rights or even the refusal of visas for certain supporters”.
As Jean-Michel De Waele notes, “football remains a major symbolic power issue for many countries. Qualifying for a World Cup can produce a very strong feeling of collective pride. It is this tension between political, economic and emotional dimensions which makes up all the complexity of football today.
