The choice of a country to host the football World Cup is not a politically neutral decision. Although sports institutions insist on presenting these events as spaces unrelated to politics, to maintain the supposed autonomy of sport, the truth is that their organization involves a form of symbolic legitimation of the host State. He is recognized, at least implicitly, as a respectable member of the international community, deserving of visibility, prestige and recognition. This argument has been used to criticize the choice of previous venues for the Soccer World Cup, such as Russia or Qatar, as well as the award, against all principles of good governance, to Saudi Arabia of the twentieth edition of the World Cup in 2034. From this perspective, it is appropriate to ask whether the United States today meets the political, legal and moral conditions necessary to organize a sporting event of global reach such as a Soccer World Cup.
Formally, the United States continues to present itself as a constitutional democracy. It maintains periodic elections, a system of separation of powers and a catalog of fundamental rights recognized in its Constitution. However, the current government of the United States is leading an authoritarian drift—some authors already speak directly of fascist—that calls into question the authenticity of these democratic features and the survival of the democratic legitimacy of its government institutions. The distance between form and practice has widened alarmingly, to the point that it can be argued that we are faced with a State that, without completely abandoning its formally democratic structures, adopts conduct typical of a regime deeply incompatible with the values that international sport claims to promote.
First, the United States acts as an openly warlike power. It is not only about its historical military interventionism, but also about the repeated willingness to attack other States without offering any legal justification in accordance with international law. Added to this is an especially serious aspect: the practice of extraterritorial arrests and kidnappings of foreign political leaders or people considered “enemies”, outside of any ordinary judicial procedure. These actions not only violate the sovereignty of other States, but also erode the basic principles of the Rule of Law and International Law, for which President Trump and his government show absolute contempt, replacing the rule of law with the logic of force.
While respect for human rights in relation to certain minorities in the United States has always been criticizable, human rights violations today are alarming. The treatment of migrants is one of the most obvious examples. Policies of mass detention, family separation, detention centers in degrading conditions and summary deportations make up a panorama incompatible with international human rights standards. Added to this is the structural discrimination that other minority groups continue to suffer, both in access to basic rights and in protection against institutional violence. The persistence of police violence, systemic racism, and extreme inequalities are not marginal failures, but rather symptoms of a political model that tolerates—if not reproduces—serious injustices.
To this we must add the progressive restriction of fundamental rights. In recent years, censorship of books in public libraries and educational centers has intensified, especially those that address issues related to racism, gender, sexual diversity or historical memory. When a State decides which ideas can circulate and which must be silenced, it places itself dangerously close to practices typical of authoritarian and fascist regimes.
Against this background, some defenders of the organization of major sporting events in countries with democratic deficits argue that, although the choice of certain venues may be problematic, these international events have the potential to transform local society. By exposing the population to different values, cultures and ways of living together, these events could foster a gradual opening of society and ultimately lead to improvements in its political and social practices.
However, even this justification cannot be applied to the case of the United States. Unlike other contexts, here we are not dealing with a closed society that can benefit from greater exposure to external democratic values. The United States does not need to “learn” from abroad in cultural or sporting terms, nor can the World Cup operate as a transformative window for its citizens. Quite the opposite: the risk is that the event functions as a mechanism for self-celebration and legitimation of a deeply problematic political model, without generating any type of relevant internal self-criticism. In this sense, the celebration of the Soccer World Cup is not an opportunity for change, but rather an instrument of symbolic consolidation of the the state in whicha greater glory of Trump.
For all these reasons, allowing the United States to organize the World Cup means sending a deeply contradictory message. If sport aspires to represent values such as dignity, equality and respect, it is difficult to justify putting these ideals at the service of a State whose political practice denies them in an increasingly obvious way. Denying the United States the organization of a World Cup is not an act of hostility but of dignity and coherence with the values on which the autonomy of sport is based. A decision consistent with the legitimacy to which sport governance aspires that cannot be separated from the ethical and political responsibility it promotes. Accusations of sports whitewashing must be coherent and not directed solely in one direction.
There is no doubt that the United States will host the World Cup. But it will be by undermining the moral and political legitimacy of FIFA. The institutional, political and economic complicity of FIFA, and particularly of its president, Gianni Infantino, with the Trump government is embarrassing. FIFA has offered moral and symbolic cover to American political power, helping to project an image of normality and international respectability that is deeply questionable. It is an association of convenience in which both parties benefit: the host State obtains legitimation and global prestige, while the sports institution secures resources, influence and significant economic benefits. The cost of this alliance is made at the expense of football, whose ethical credibility and whose moral patina are seriously eroded. It is not the first time that something similar has happened: just remember how international sport was instrumentalized in the 1936 Berlin Olympic Games organized by Hitler, with lasting consequences for its symbolic legitimacy. Ignoring these lessons is not only a lack of historical memory, but an explicit renunciation of demanding coherence between the values that sport proclaims and the political realities it decides to support.
José Luis Pérez Triviño and Alberto Carrio Sampedro They are professors of Philosophy of Law at the Pompeu Fabra University and members of the Master EU Sport, Ethics and Integrity.
