![\"\"](\"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/L21-Banner-INGLES-1024x190.png\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\nThis contrast summarizes three persistent shortcomings of international football governance: the increasing politicization of decisions that should be neutral, the lack of institutional transparency and the subordination of sporting values to economic interests.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Neutrality is one of the founding principles of sport. Sports organizations argue that governments should not interfere in sports decisions and that athletes should compete free from political pressure. That principle, however, loses legitimacy when the institutions themselves allow political considerations to influence their actions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The relationship between FIFA President Gianni Infantino and U.S. President Donald Trump illustrated those tensions. The presentation of the so-called FIFA Peace Prize was surrounded by opacity regarding the eligibility criteria, the candidates considered and the procedure followed, appearing to respond more to political affinities than to a verifiable institutional process. Similarly, the decision to lift Folarin Balogun’s suspension after a call from the US president raised doubts about the independence of FIFA’s disciplinary bodies. The decision was adopted without the procedure or the reasons being made public.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The lack of transparency also appeared in other areas, from the management of funds to the adoption of decisions that affect players, coaching staff and fans. In an organization that manages the most followed sporting spectacle on the planet, accountability is not an administrative luxury but an indispensable condition for preserving trust.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
U.S. immigration policies offered another example. Fans from C\u00f4te d’Ivoire, Haiti, Iran and Senegal were unable to attend the World Cup due to the Trump administration’s bans, while others faced significant obstacles in obtaining visas. Iranian players were not allowed to stay in the United States between matches and Somali referee Omar Abdulkadir Artan was denied entry. FIFA did not take a meaningful public stance to question these policies. Its silence contrasted with the commitment it proclaims to inclusion and equality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Tensions between neutrality and freedom of expression were also present. Haiti had to modify its jersey because FIFA considered it to contain a political symbol linked to the battle of Verti\u00e8res and the country’s independence, although it never explained which element violated the regulations. It also removed from official pre-match ceremonies the stanzas of the Algerian anthem referring to the anti-colonial struggle. In both cases, historical references to French colonial rule were censored, while other national anthems with war allusions remained intact. The uneven application of similar rules fueled the perception of arbitrariness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The same problem was also evident in the reactions to political expressions of players, coaches and fans. Following Egypt’s victory over Australia, Hossam Hassan held a Palestinian flag without any investigation being announced. Instead, FIFA banned Iran’s pre-revolutionary Lion and Sun flag, barred an Israeli flag from entering a match between Iran and New Zealand, and launched an investigation into the display of a flag with the phrase “The Falklands are Argentine” (a reference to the British colonial occupation) after the match between Argentina and England.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In the final, Donald Trump and Infantino were booed by thousands of fans. Fox, the exclusive U.S. broadcaster in the United States, silenced those moments. Economic interests prevailed over a full coverage of what happened, in a context of known political affinity between Fox and Trump.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The tournament also highlighted the growing influence of commercial interests. One of its main sponsors was the Saudi oil company Aramco, yet FIFA never explained how this sponsorship was compatible with its sustainability and human rights strategy. Nor did FIFA clarify that Yasir Al-Rumayyan, president of Aramco, also governs the Saudi Public Investment Fund, which is singled out for its alleged involvement in serious human rights violations, including the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Economic interests also influenced the rules of the tournament. FIFA introduced mandatory hydration breaks that expanded advertising spaces without explaining the procedure followed to adopt them. The justification based on the health of the players is less convincing given that several matches were played at the hottest times to favor global broadcasts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The World Cup also became a platform for debates on racism, discrimination, homophobia and freedom of expression. Homophobic chants by Mexican fans persisted without investigations or refereeing interruptions as required by FIFA regulations. Discussions about the low presence of Afro-descendants in the Argentine national team promoted a debate about racism, although they left other equally relevant questions unaddressed: why there are practically no openly gay players in the national teams or why religious and ethnic diversity continues to be so limited in many national teams. Nor did the debate ask whether supposedly more diverse national teams necessarily reflect more egalitarian societies free from racism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The perception of an unequal application of the rules that protect against racism also emerges when comparing the treatment received by Latin Americans Miguel Almir\u00f3n, from Paraguay, and Piero Hincapi\u00e9, from Ecuador, with that given to the Englishman Jude Bellingham and the Spaniard Marc Cucurella. The four of them covered their mouths, but only Almir\u00f3n and Hincapi\u00e9 were sent off. It is not a matter of sustaining conspiracy theories, but of warning that the lack of transparency and uniform standards ends up feeding the perception of a differentiated treatment between Latin American and European footballers, which does not contribute to the objective of a football without racism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In short, the World Cup was a great celebration that mobilized millions of people, inspired admiration for the talent and effort of players and teams and showed that economic power does not guarantee sporting success. Precisely because of football’s ability to inspire and unite, its institutions must be held to the highest standards of transparency, independence and respect for human rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If the World Cup leaves a lasting lesson, it should be that FIFA’s legitimacy depends not only on staging a successful tournament but also on governing it according to consistent principles. Neutrality, equality, transparency and accountability cannot be invoked only when they are appropriate. They must guide all the decisions of the organization. That should be the real victory that this World Cup leaves us with.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Beyond Spain’s victory, the World Cup once again exposed FIFA’s contradictions: politicized decision-making, a lack of transparency, commercial interests, and the uneven enforcement of its rules on human rights, discrimination, and freedom of expression.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":748,"featured_media":58043,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"episode_type":"","audio_file":"","podmotor_file_id":"","podmotor_episode_id":"","cover_image":"","cover_image_id":"","duration":"","filesize":"","filesize_raw":"","date_recorded":"","explicit":"","block":"","itunes_episode_number":"","itunes_title":"","itunes_season_number":"","itunes_episode_type":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[16931,16919,16844],"tags":[15635],"gps":[],"class_list":["post-58056","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-derechos-humanos-en","category-futbol-en","category-democracia-en","tag-debates"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58056","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/748"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=58056"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58056\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":58058,"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58056\/revisions\/58058"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/58043"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=58056"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=58056"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=58056"},{"taxonomy":"gps","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/gps?post=58056"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}