When the World Gathers: The 2026 World Cup, Cultural Belonging and Immigration

By Ana Gabriela Columa '27

---

With 48 teams, 30 official languages, six continents, and three host countries, the 2026 World Cup was one of the summer's biggest attractions for soccer fans. Over 39 days, the tournament featured the largest number of teams to ever participate, drawing fans from around the world who were eager to see their countries compete on the global stage. The four-year cycle is due to factors such as logistical management, economics, and fan interest. (1) That anticipation is part of what makes the World Cup more than just a sport; it is a way for different cultures to come together, represent their own uniqueness, and understand one another. The tournament is also one of the few spaces where nations publicly decide who counts as one of their own, a form of belonging that scholars trace through its history. (2)

For the first time, three countries co-hosted the World Cup, and that arrangement quietly exposes the issue at the heart of this piece. Canada and Mexico did not impose the same travel restrictions as the United States, meaning that fans who were barred from United States matches may still have been able to attend games in the other two host nations. (3) The country positioning the World Cup as a global showcase is the same one that shut most people out. Although the 2026 World Cup was celebrated as a global event of cultural unity and inclusion, U.S. immigration restrictions reveal a contradiction: the country presenting itself as a welcoming host is also excluding many of the fans, families, and communities that make the tournament meaningful.

In the United States, many fans have not been received with a warm welcome, while others were denied visas. Alongside the travel bans, fans faced serious concerns about safety and steep costs. Potential visitors from countries such as Haiti, Iran, the Ivory Coast, and Senegal are prevented from entering the United States. (4) These restrictions are presidential proclamations, which authorize the president to suspend entry of any class of foreign nationals he sees as detrimental to U.S. interests. (5) This is not a legal gray area. In Trump v. Hawaii, the Supreme Court held that the president's power under § 1182(f) to suspend entry by nationality is broad and largely unreviewable, which means the fans left outside are not just excluded by policy; they are excluded by law. (6) The administration presented the World Cup as a chance to showcase America's strength and uniqueness, yet that framing is harder to sustain when entire nationalities are barred at the consular level, denied not for what they have done but for the passport they hold. (7)

Officials have defended restrictions on national security grounds. The affected countries allegedly have weak identity systems, unreliable records, poor information-sharing, or a terrorist presence. Other cited reasons include high visa overstay rates, refusal to accept deportees, and concerns about citizenship-by-investment programs that can mask identities. (8) Still, others point out that these reasons are too broad and ignore the vetting the United States already does, including biometrics, interviews, and background checks.

For every empty seat, there is a fan who did everything right and still could not get in; the human costs show up quickly. For example, Iran’s federation sought visas for a nine-member delegation to the Washington draw; only four were approved, including a denial for the federation president. The United States gave no further reason, and only after a boycott threat did a last-minute deal let the full delegation attend. (9) Morocco is another example: more than 40 supporters were denied entry despite holding tickets and hotel bookings, leaving fans unable to show up for their team and their culture. (10) Across the tournament, players, families, and staff faced the same uncertainty over who would be allowed to enter and participate.

Yet even against that backdrop, this World Cup was already making history before the first whistle blew. For the first time since 1974, Haiti qualified, and did so without being able to practice on home soil because of the violence gripping the country. (11) What makes this especially painful is that Haiti is included in the travel ban, leaving families unable to come to the United States to support a milestone moment in their country's soccer history. Yet under Kerry v. Din, 576 U.S. 86 (2015), even family members of U.S. citizens have minimal legal recourse when a visa is denied, let alone foreign nationals with no constitutional foothold in the United States at all. (12) Haiti waited more than fifty years for this moment, yet the families who helped carry that dream could not be able to witness it from the stands. How does one celebrate history when the people who shaped it cannot be there to see it? This exclusion is not incidental but categorical. Under the plenary power doctrine established in Chae Chan Ping v. In the United States, the political branches owe no individualized review and no explanation to a Haitian family denied entry; the ban operates by nationality alone, and the law demands nothing further from the executive. (13)

As these restrictions continued to raise concerns, many have urged FIFA to take action. However, a spokesperson claims that FIFA has nothing to do with how a host country handles immigration. (14) And legally, that is largely true. Entry decisions rest with the federal government, not a sporting body, and the power to admit or exclude foreign nationals belongs to the executive under longstanding immigration law. (15) FIFA can lobby and plead, as it reportedly has behind the scenes, but it cannot override a visa denial. That leaves players and fans in a painful position: the institution closest to the game has the least power to fix these issues, and the institution with the power has little interest in doing so.

For many, soccer is more than a game; it is an escape, a way to feel closer to home. For countries like Brazil, the World Cup is not about scoring goals; it is a sign of hard work and the ways people have fought to represent their culture. Throughout Brazil, many painted the pavement in front of their homes with elaborate designs of the Brazilian flag, soccer balls, golden trophies, and sketches of their favorite players. (16) But celebrating from home is not the same as being there. Part of the tradition is traveling to support their country in person, standing in the stands among their own people. This is why travel restrictions mattered beyond policy: they can separate people from the cultural traditions and memories that make the World Cup meaningful in the first place. Legal scholars have argued that immigration law recognizes a family's interest in remaining together, stays hard to vindicate in practice. (17) What the law treats as an unsettled question, families live as a locked door.

Those who did make it into the United States face a second hurdle. Upon arrival, many visitors encountered heightened immigration enforcement. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) continued to play a role in American airports and around stadiums. (18) While these efforts are presented as a way to protect the country and its citizens, they left many fans deeply worried. Yet when asked whether ICE's role at the World Cup would be limited to security rather than arresting undocumented migrants, DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin pointed instead to the agency's broader mission of enforcing the United States customs laws. "It's Immigration and Customs Enforcement," he said. "So what do you find at a tremendous amount of sporting events? Counterfeit products, counterfeit tickets. You have counterfeit clothing being sold on the streets." (19) Pressed on whether fans would be arrested, he pivoted to counterfeit merchandise and never quite said no. For supporters who were already anxious about ICE at the gates, that non-answer reads as its own kind of warning.

So to what extent do these policies actually infringe on the cultural and familial rights they appear to? Legally, the answer is unsettling. Foreign nationals abroad have almost no constitutional right to enter the United States, a principle that traces back to the plenary power doctrine discussed above. (20) The Supreme Court reaffirmed this in Trump v. Hawaii, holding that the president's power to suspend entry by nationality under § 1182(f) is broad and entitled to strong judicial deference. (21) But lawful and right are not the same thing. The right to family unity, while rooted in substantive due process, remains constitutionally thin and rarely actionable in immigration cases, leaving families with a recognized interest but no reliable remedy. (22) A policy can be perfectly legal and still take something real from people: a grandfather who could not watch his country play for the first time in fifty years, a family that saves thousands for tickets it can never use. The 2026 World Cup was meant to be America introducing itself to the world. Instead, it became a sorting of who belongs, drawn at the passport rather than at the love of the game.

If the World Cup was meant to represent unity between nations, then it should also inspire civic action. That responsibility is already being taken up by organizations, businesses, and community groups working to protect the safety and well-being of families, players, and teams. The legislation did not need to be overhauled, nor would easing it have compromised national security in any way. It simply needed to heed the voices of the people and open its doors for an event of such importance. A purchased ticket, a confirmed hotel booking, and a completed background check should have been more than enough to welcome a soccer fan. The government retains full discretion to admit or exclude under its existing authority, so it can stay strict and preserve safety while still carving out a narrow, vetted exemption for ticketed fans. Being welcoming and being secure were never opposites. This event offered the chance to prove that. As the global gaze shifted toward the host nation, the tournament revealed a stark tension between exclusionary enforcement and the collective spirit of belonging it was meant to embody.

Endnotes 

1. Encyclopaedia Britannica, "What Are the Pros and Cons of Expanding the World Cup Field to 48 Teams?," 2026, https://www.britannica.com/question/What-are-the-pros-and-cons-of-expanding-the-World-Cup-field-to-48-teams.

2. Gijsbert Oonk, "Who May Represent the Country? Football, Citizenship, Migration, and National Identity at the FIFA World Cup," The International Journal of the History of Sport 37 (2020), https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09523367.2020.1844188.

3. Council on Foreign Relations, "The U.S. Is Co-Hosting the World Cup, but Much of the World Can't Attend," June 10, 2026, https://www.cfr.org/articles/the-u-s-is-co-hosting-the-world-cup-but-much-of-the-world-cant-attend.

4. Proclamation No. 10843, 90 Fed. Reg. (June 4, 2025); White House, "Restricting and Limiting the Entry of Foreign Nationals to Protect the Security of the United States," presidential proclamation, December 16, 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/12/restricting-and-limiting-the-entry-of-foreign-nationals-to-protect-the-security-of-the-united-states/.

5. Congressional Research Service, Presidential Authority to Suspend or Restrict Entry of Foreign Nationals Under Section 212(f), LSB10458 (2024), https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10458.

6. Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018); 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f), https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf.

7. U.S. Department of State, "FIFA World Cup 26 Visas," 2026, https://www.state.gov/fifa-world-cup-26-visas/.

8. White House, "Restricting and Limiting the Entry of Foreign Nationals to Protect the Security of the United States" (see note 4) (stating national security rationale).

9. Front Office Sports, "Travel, Visa Issues Hang Over World Cup," 2026, https://frontofficesports.com/travel-visa-issues-hang-over-world-cup/.

10. NPR, "A Warm World Cup Welcome? U.S. Immigration Policies Have Chilling Effect," June 9, 2026, https://www.npr.org/2026/06/09/nx-s1-5851634/immigration-policies-affect-fifa.

11. FIFA, "Haiti Qualify," 2026, https://www.fifa.com/en/tournaments/mens/worldcup/canadamexicousa2026/articles/haiti-qualify.

12. Kerry v. Din, 576 U.S. 86 (2015), https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-1402_e29g.pdf.

13. Chae Chan Ping v. United States, 130 U.S. 581 (1889), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/130/581/.

14. American Immigration Council, "50 Days Until the World Cup: Travel Bans, ICE, and Iran Cause Uncertainty for Players and Fans," April 22, 2026, https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/blog/world-cup-travel-bans-ice-iran-50-days/.

15. Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018) (see note 6).

16. New York Times, "World Cup Brazil Street Art," June 13, 2026, https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/13/world/americas/world-cup-brazil-street-art.html.

17. Eugene Lee, "Recognizing the Right to Family Unity in Immigration Law," Michigan Law Review 121 (2023): 677, https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol121/iss4/4/.

18. American Immigration Council, "50 Days Until the World Cup: Travel Bans, ICE, and Iran Cause Uncertainty for Players and Fans" (see note 14).

19. CBS News, "DHS Secretary Mullin Interview," 2026, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dhs-secretary-mullin-interview-ice-fifa-immigration-fema-hantavirus/.

20. Chae Chan Ping v. United States, 130 U.S. 581 (1889) (see note 13).

21. Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018) (see note 6).

22. Lee, "Recognizing the Right to Family Unity in Immigration Law" (see note 17).