INTERVIEW. “There is no sporting truce, the World Cup follows the line of Donald Trump” judges Kevin Veyssiere, specialist in football geopolitics

What does a first or second participation in the World Cup represent for the countries concerned?

The situations are varied. For Haiti, the State no longer really has the means to enforce the law on its territory. Which implies that the team did not play any qualifying matches at home. This qualification makes it possible to change the way we look at this country, to give a more positive image during the World Cup, even if this does not remove all the deplorable news around it, including poverty and gang activity. This will also be the case for the Democratic Republic of Congo, where there is considerable popular fervor because the country has been waiting for qualification for fifty years, like Haiti. It is a positive aside but one which does not obscure the health crisis linked to Ebola, the war…

And for Curaçao?

This is the most interesting case of highlighting. We don’t know at all this small Caribbean island of barely 150,000 inhabitants. It’s the Tom Thumb of the competition, it’s not even a country in itself (it is a member of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Editor’s note). No other media event than the World Cup, since at the Olympics all countries are represented, gives this opportunity to highlight its colors to five billion spectators.

The World Cup brings visibility to Curaçao which is all the more important as its economy is based on tourism, in a region where competition is strong. On the other hand, there is no political issue since this territory does not claim independence, which would be different for New Caledonia or Greenland if these territories qualified.

Russia and Qatar wanted to relax their entry policy. The United States remains in a standoff”

The Iranian team was forced to establish its base camp in Mexico while it plays its three matches in the United States, the delegation, like others, is closely monitored, targeted…

The case of Iran is atypical: it is a first for a team to have to play in a country with which it is at war. More generally, the situation is unprecedented, because FIFA usually tries to work with the host country so that it relaxes its legislation in order to have favorable international visibility, which tourists and supporters send back and “sell” a positive image. In Russia in 2018 and in Qatar in 2022, these countries wanted to relax their entry policy, particularly for Russia, with a special visa for the duration of the competition.

For the United States, this is not the case at all, everything reflects the country’s policy towards the world and what Donald Trump is putting in place, that is to say a permanent balance of power. The others must comply with his arm wrestling, with American rules, not the other way around.

There is no truce, like during the Olympic Games…

There is no sports bubble or break during the World Cup, as we can see with the visa policy, with the custody of the Iraqi player in the United States, this official Somali FIFA referee turned away at entry after eleven hours of interrogation. This is a first, because in the past we have seen a Fifa that is much more focused on finding solutions upstream so that the debate is not politicized before the competition.

“We will see if Fifa would comply with any extravagant demands that Trump might have.”

Why this change in attitude from Fifa?

One might wonder why she lacked so much anticipation. Or think, this is what I believe, that its president Gianni Infantino is following the line of Donald Trump. Because it is the leading world power and Infantino idolizes his president. We will see if Fifa will comply with any extravagant demands that Trump might have.

What could it be?