In a recent post, we discussed how FIFA structures World Cup hosting arrangements so that downside risk is borne locally while control remains centralized. Municipal tax allocation provided a clear illustration; even where taxes are legally imposed on FIFA or its subsidiaries, host cities agree by contract to absorb the resulting cost.

In January 2026, former FIFA President Sepp Blatter joined growing calls for fans to boycott matches held in the United States during the 2026 FIFA World Cup. His support reflected broader concerns over U.S. political conduct, immigration policies, and the treatment of migrants and protesters, with critics questioning whether the United States was an appropriate host for a global event intended to unify nations.

In July, federal prosecutors secured a significant appellate victory affirming their power to prosecute foreign commercial bribery worldwide. Yet when defendants Hernán Lopez and Full Play Group petitioned for Supreme Court review, the DOJ reversed course, abandoning both the case and the precedent it had just won.

FIFA’s decision to award its brand new “Peace Prize” to Donald Trump seemed less like a gesture toward global peace and unity and more a brazen exercise in pandering. The inaugural prize, which was created quietly, apparently without nominees, criteria, or any visible process, was handed out during the 2026 World Cup draw, with FIFA President Gianni Infantino hailing Trump for “extraordinary” actions for peace. It felt like Roman tribute.