FIFA World Cup 2026: Legal & Ethical Hurdles

By Jacob Mallie

This coming June, the FIFA World Cup™ is heading to North America. For the first time in history, it will be hosted across three different countries. Excitement is growing, and the energy is palpable. Millions of fans will travel across continents to see their team compete for the world's grandest prize. 

The FIFA World Cup is the largest and most popular event in sports. In 2022, 1.5 billion people watched the final between Argentina and France. Compared with the 2026 Super Bowl, which drew around 127 million viewers, the World Cup attracts a substantially larger audience. All eyes are focusing on the United States, Canada, and Mexico this year to put on a spectacle. But first, FIFA must address the legal and ethical challenges presented by the new format. 

FIFA has a very strict sponsorship agreement with their partners, arranged in three tiers. According to the Sport Business Journal, the first tier includes “Partners.” These partners are long-term and have multi-year contracts with FIFA–soccer/football’s governing body. Brands such as Adidas and Coca-Cola are Tier 1 FIFA World Cup sponsors. Tier 2 are the “Sponsors”. The sponsors are limited to advertising across the current tournament, not necessarily multiple years. And finally, Tier 3 are the “Supporters”. These companies (Airbnb, DoorDash, etc.) are limited to advertising within specific host cities. 

Given the complexity of FIFA sponsorship contracts, stadium naming rights were a major topic of discussion. 14 of the 16 host city stadiums had to be renamed for this year's FIFA World Cup™. The United States, compared with other countries around the world, is an advertising conglomerate, and there are strict copyright and contractual laws in place around the country. However, brands and companies have previously paid millions of dollars to secure stadium naming rights. 

FIFA, remaining staunch in their stance of neutrality, gave many stadiums with distinct, recognizable names, new, generic names. Iconic stadiums such as AT&T Stadium (home of the Dallas Cowboys), Arrowhead Stadium (home of the Kansas City Chiefs), and MetLife Stadium (home of the New York Jets and Giants) were all renamed. They are now being referred to as “Dallas Stadium”, “Kansas City Stadium”, and “New York-New Jersey Stadium” for the duration of the tournament. FIFA’s renaming of these stadiums has raised the question: can a private governing body override private commercial agreements for a global event? 

FIFA also faces legal and ethical concerns of U.S. immigration policies affecting the tournament. According to Reuters last week, civil and immigrant groups issued a statewide travel alert for Florida, citing Florida’s immigration enforcement risks. There have been warnings of potential random detentions of visitors ahead of the tournament. Rights groups warn this could deter or endanger visitors attending matches. These organizations have now called on FIFA and the specific host cities across the state to implement strong human rights action plans, addressing discrimination, protections against racial profiling, and freedom of expression. If civil rights violations do occur during the tournament, governments and NGOs (non-governmental organizations) could initiate legal challenges or pressure FIFA through international law frameworks.  

As FIFA is rapidly approaching the first day of the World Cup, there are remaining legal and ethical questions extending far beyond the pitch. How FIFA navigates these challenges, and their public stance, will not only shape the success of the 2026 tournament, but may also establish important precedent for the governance of future sporting events as sport expands further internationally.