By: Dwight Links
At the time of writing this opinion piece, Greenland and possibly Iran were under threat from being exposed to American ‘democracy.’ Said democracy can be likened with the kind Venezuela and Nicolás Maduro experienced on 3 January 2026.
The FIFA World Cup 2026 is slated for later this year in the USA, Mexico and Canada. The next chapter of the world’s most popular sports event takes centre stage, after its usual four-year cycle, aiming to bring more people together under the common theme of sport and positivity around community engagement. Here, I reference the current strategic plan as FIFA has put it for the 2023-2027 timeframe.
PRECEDENCE PUZZLE
Precedence is a peculiar beast outside of the courts of man and everyday life, as this is a system difficult to uphold. Unless the parties approach the courts to settle a dispute.
However, since 3 January 2026, and including the Iran bombing of 2025 (search for 12-day war on Iran), the first item that keeps popping up on YouTube discussion videos and articles from major outlets internationally is whether FIFA will act on the clearly aggressive actions of the United States of America.
Unless someone can show me that foreign boots trodded somewhere on American soil, it still reeks of aggression.
Russia was banned from UEFA (Europe’s confederation on football affairs) and its affiliate competitions during 2022, and FIFA supported the actions of UEFA on this matter by enforcing this ban.
This led to an appeal process by the FUR (Russian Football Association) to the Court of Arbitration for Sports (CAS), which also failed.
The reasoning was based on the following decision by the UEFA Council:
In accordance with Article 16.02 of the Bid Regulations UEFA Finals and Final Phases which states that “each bidder shall ensure that it does not act in a manner that could bring UEFA, the UEFA final or UEFA final phase, any other bidder (or any employee, officer or representative of any of the foregoing), the bidding procedure or European football into disrepute.”
Vague language to be frank, but this was a UEFA-centric approach and meant that this was a confederation decision that was upheld across the world.
The US belongs to CONCACAF, comprising North and Central America, along with the Caribbean nations.
And, not even in this confederation is any mention made of the conduct or the maintenance of reputation regarding the image of the zone.
OTHER PRECEDENCES
CAF and FIFA have routinely ‘disciplined’ or threatened African nations who wished to intervene in the affairs of the sport inside their countries.
Kenya and Zimbabwe were both suspended for political interference, but did not meet the FIFA Congress’ criteria for lifting their suspensions, consequently only recently returning for qualification.
Zimbabwe only recently returned and even participated in the recent African Cup of Nations in Morocco.
Both nations were intervening to apprehended ‘corrupt’ actions by the football officials in their nations, who received government monies, and were being dragged to courts for misappropriation of government funds.
Not FIFA or CAF funds.
THE DILEMMA?
We do not know when FIFA acts in good faith, and when it actually follows the letter of its own law. The world can only watch as we approach the June/July tournament with the strict immigration and travel regulations in the USA.
Dwight Links is an Eagle FM radio journalist and future polymath. His interests span from education, sports and the greater historic world.
