Can Trump Really Relocate World Cup Matches? Unpacking the Truth Behind His Bold Claims
The idea of a U.S. president wielding the power to reshuffle international sporting events like the World Cup is nothing short of jaw-dropping. But is it even possible? Let’s dive into the facts, the controversies, and the surprising nuances behind Donald Trump’s threats to move World Cup games from certain U.S. cities.
What Exactly Did Trump Say—And When?
This isn’t the first time Trump has floated the idea of relocating World Cup matches. The most recent instance occurred on Tuesday, marking the second time he’s threatened to strip host cities of their games due to political disagreements or opposition to his policies. But here’s the twist: Trump hasn’t brought this up on his own. Both times, he was responding to pointed questions from the press, which framed the possibility of moving games as a viable option. And this is the part most people miss: Trump’s comments were less about a premeditated plan and more about reacting to the narrative being pushed in front of him.
On September 25, during an Oval Office event, a reporter asked Trump about cities like Seattle and San Francisco—both of which have seen protests against his use of federal agencies for immigration and crime crackdowns. The reporter noted that these cities were World Cup hosts (though San Francisco itself isn’t a host city; games will be held in nearby Santa Clara) and wondered if the protests could lead to the loss of hosting privileges. Trump’s response? “I guess, but we’re going to make sure they’re safe. They’re run by radical left lunatics who don’t know what they’re doing.”
Later, Trump mentioned Chicago—which isn’t even a 2026 World Cup host city—claiming it would be safe after federal intervention. He doubled down on his stance: “If any city we think is going to be even a little bit dangerous for the World Cup, we won’t allow it to go there. We’ll move it around a little bit.”
Fast forward to October 14, when Trump was asked about Boston—another host city, though games will actually take place in suburban Foxborough, Massachusetts. A reporter brought up a recent “street takeover” in Boston, where police officers were attacked and a police car was set on fire. Trump’s reaction? “We could take [the games] away. Their mayor is not good … She’s radical left, and they’re taking over parts of Boston. That’s a pretty big statement, right?”
But here’s where it gets controversial: Street takeovers, while disruptive and sometimes violent, are not inherently tied to political ideologies. They’re a social media-driven phenomenon that emerged during the Covid-19 lockdowns, and while recent incidents in Massachusetts have raised concerns, they’re hardly seen as a large-scale threat to World Cup attendees. So, is Trump’s focus on “safety” genuinely about protecting the public, or is it a thinly veiled attempt to punish cities with opposing political views?
Does Trump Even Have the Power to Do This?
In short: No. At least not unilaterally. Host city agreements for the World Cup are signed between FIFA, the global governing body of soccer, and local municipalities. While the U.S. government is involved, these are essentially private business deals, and the president can’t single-handedly cancel them. But here’s the catch: Trump could apply pressure by withholding federal funding or appealing directly to FIFA president Gianni Infantino, with whom he’s cultivated a close relationship.
Could FIFA Actually Move the Games?
Theoretically, yes. Host city agreements include clauses that allow FIFA to revoke a city’s status if safety standards aren’t met. For example, Seattle’s agreement (clause 4.5) outlines expensive safety measures the city must implement. If FIFA deems these insufficient, they could, in theory, pull the plug. But let’s be real—relocating matches would be a logistical nightmare, especially for a tournament spanning three countries and 16 cities. Not to mention the legal battles that would likely ensue. And this is the part most people miss: FIFA has never moved games this close to an event unless faced with extreme circumstances like war, health crises, or political upheaval.
What’s the U.S. Government’s Role Here?
So far, it’s been more about posturing than actual action. Trump formed a World Cup task force earlier this year, headed by Andrew Giuliani, with the lofty goal of organizing “the largest sporting events in the history of mankind.” The federal government also handles visas for international visitors, but processing delays have sparked fears that many fans won’t get approved in time. On the security front, expect to see FBI agents and possibly Homeland Security or ICE personnel in host cities—a move that could be seen as either reassuring or overbearing, depending on your perspective.
How Has FIFA Responded?
FIFA president Gianni Infantino has remained publicly silent on Trump’s threats, though he did join Trump in Egypt for the Gaza summit—an odd move for someone whose role is ostensibly about sports. Meanwhile, FIFA vice-president Victor Montagliani was blunt: “It’s FIFA’s tournament, FIFA’s jurisdiction. Football is bigger than any individual or country.” A FIFA spokesperson added that safety is a government responsibility, and they hope all 16 host cities will meet the necessary standards.
Boston Mayor Michelle Wu fired back at Trump, pointing out that FIFA’s contracts are “locked down” and can’t be undone by a single person—even the president. She also called out Trump’s threats as part of a broader pattern of intimidation against those who oppose his agenda.
Have Events Like This Ever Been Moved Before?
Only in extreme cases. The 2003 Women’s World Cup was shifted from China to the U.S. due to the SARS outbreak. FIFA also relocated the 2023 Under-20 World Cup from Indonesia after opposition to Israel’s participation. The Olympics, meanwhile, have been canceled due to wars or postponed (like Tokyo 2020 due to Covid-19), but host cities haven’t changed since 1908, when Mount Vesuvius’ eruption forced the Rome games to London.
Why Is Trump Framing This as a Safety Issue?
Safety has been a cornerstone of Trump’s administration, the justification for deploying federal agencies to cities like Washington D.C. and Chicago. By tying World Cup hosting to safety, he’s playing to his base while leveraging a legitimate concern for political gain. But is this about protecting the public, or is it a power play?
What Happens If Washington Actually Intervenes?
That’s the million-dollar question. When the federal government has intervened in other areas, institutions often comply or negotiate. But will FIFA or the IOC bend to Trump’s will? Or will they stand firm, asserting their authority over their own events? And here’s the bigger question for you: Is Trump’s approach a necessary safeguard, or an overreach of presidential power? Let’s hear your thoughts in the comments—this debate is far from over.
