By blocking many Africans from participating and attending, the US has made a mockery of FIFA’s apparent commitment to universal access.

The 2026 FIFA World Cup final this Sunday between Spain and Argentina is the culmination of what should have been the biggest celebration of diversity in football history.

Forty-eight teams (compared to the usual 32) played matches across three countries: Mexico, Canada and the United States. The expanded format was meant to broaden global participation, allowing more countries to compete in a scintillating display of football’s unifying power.

Ten African nations – Algeria, Cabo Verde, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Egypt, Ghana, Morocco, Senegal, South Africa and Tunisia – competed this year, representing nearly double the number in the 2010 World Cup in South Africa.

While FIFA has expanded the tournament and pledged inclusion and global participation, several contradictions are a reminder that global sporting events cannot transcend the socio-political contexts in which they are played.

Many people questioned FIFA’s commitment to political neutrality after United States (US) President Donald Trump called FIFA President Gianni Infantino to intervene in a US player’s suspension. Prosecutors in France have opened an investigation into racial slurs against French player Kylian Mbappé by Paraguayan Senator Celeste Amarilla. Egyptian Coach Hossam Hassan alleged racism against referees during their match against Argentina.

Three countries may be co-hosting the tournament, but it is overwhelmingly US-based. Of the World Cup’s 104 matches, 78 (75%) will have been played in the US. Every team that has advanced into the latter stages has played on US soil. That meant entry to the US by players, officials and spectators was vital to achieving FIFA’s commitment to universal access.

While the US reportedly made visa concessions for players and staff, the Trump administration’s exclusionary immigration policies have impeded access beyond the pitch. Many officials, spectators and journalists have been denied entry.

Iran, in active combat with the US, was most affected, with 15 staff and scores of fans refused entry. But African passport holders, as with the 2024 Olympics, are disproportionately affected by restrictive immigration policies.

Somali Omar Abdulkadir Artan was Africa’s referee of the year in 2025 and was set to become the first Somali to officiate at the FIFA World Cup. On arrival at Miami Airport carrying a valid visa, he was reportedly interrogated for 11 hours and then denied entry for being a threat to national security.

Artan’s entry denial attracted significant global criticism, including from the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA). President of UEFA Aleksander Čeferin described Artan as a talented and experienced referee and announced he would officiate UEFA’s Super Cup Final in August.

DRC superfan Michel Kuka Mboladinga, known for dressing as revolutionary leader Patrice Lumumba and striking statue poses throughout games, attended the DRC’s game against Colombia in Mexico. But he couldn’t obtain a visa for US-based games.

Senegalese captain Kalidou Koulibaly publicly criticised the US for denying visas to African fans, saying, ‘I think that every team can have their people, so I don’t understand why people from Africa cannot have their people.’

Cabo Verde goalie Josimar ‘Vozinha’ Dias said high visa costs prevented his mother from witnessing his team tie with powerhouse Spain. The US State Department subsequently intervened and made special arrangements for her.

The Sports Association of Moroccan National Team Fans had 40 of its 42 visa applicants rejected despite the applicants’ well-established travel histories, close adherence to instructions, ticket, accommodation and visa fees payments and visits to the US Embassy.

In January 2026, Trump issued a directive to pause visa application processing for people from 75 countries, mostly in Africa and the Middle East. It included restrictions on all African countries participating in the World Cup, except South Africa.  

For Africans, mobility has become one of the defining inequalities of the 21st century. Exclusion is not merely a sporting controversy; it is a highly visible manifestation of a broader pattern in which nationality overrides merit. Researchers, students, entrepreneurs and professionals routinely encounter barriers that their counterparts from wealthier regions do not.

Those who do manage to obtain visas face extensive scrutiny. For US travel, this now includes making social media accounts public and screening for ‘anti-American content’. Such checks are predictable consequences of immigration regimes that increasingly view mobility through the lens of risk, exclusion and security.

For its part, FIFA has failed to stand up for players, officials and fans. Infantino said visa adjudication fell within the host country’s purview. This is despite both FIFA’s Human Rights Strategy for the 2026 tournament and its broader Human Rights Policy explicitly prohibiting discrimination of any kind against any person or country and undertaking to foster inclusion and diversity.

While host countries retain control over their borders, the World Cup has historically established special arrangements designed to ensure participation for fans and officials.

In 2018, Russia temporarily suspended its visa requirements and required only a personalised Fan ID for entry. Similarly, in 2022, Qatar required only a Hayya Card, which served as both a valid travel document and an entry pass into the games. FIFA has also historically sanctioned countries and teams, such as Russia following the invasion of Ukraine and South Africa under apartheid.

The World Cup has evolved into a major gathering of political leaders, multinational companies, media and more. If football’s biggest tournament wants to remain a genuinely neutral and global event, FIFA must reconsider its principle of non-interference and ensure that the rights of participation are upheld.

FIFA cannot celebrate diversity and allow powerful countries to intervene, while remaining silent about policies that disproportionately exclude Africans and others from the very event it claims belongs to everyone.

Written by Aimée-Noël Mbiyozo, Senior Research Consultant, Migration, ISS & Xhanti Mhlambiso, Researcher, Rule of Law, Special Projects, ISS Pretoria