Imagine a president wielding the power to uproot one of the world's biggest sporting spectacles from its planned locations—like yanking the World Cup away from vibrant cities due to political disagreements. Sounds dramatic, right? That's exactly the kind of bold claim former President Donald Trump has made recently, stirring up a storm of debate about authority, sports, and safety. But is it possible, or just hot air? Let's dive deep into the facts, untangling the threats and the realities behind them, in a way that's easy to follow even if you're new to this political-sports crossover drama.
First off, what did Trump actually say? It's not like he brought this up out of nowhere—twice in recent weeks, he responded to reporters who steered the conversation toward relocating World Cup matches. On September 25, during an Oval Office gathering, a journalist pointed to protests in cities like Seattle and San Francisco against Trump's immigration and crime policies. These cities are set to host games (though San Francisco's role is more about the nearby Bay Area, with matches at Levi's Stadium in Santa Clara). The reporter asked if those demonstrations might lead to the games being pulled.
Trump's reply? He brushed it off by saying, 'I guess, but we’re going to make sure they’re safe,' and labeled the cities' leaders as 'radical left lunatics' who 'don’t know what they’re doing.' He went further, insisting that Chicago would be secure if he deployed federal agencies there, just like in Washington, D.C.—even though Chicago isn't on the 2026 World Cup schedule. '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 to it. We’ll move it around a little bit,' he declared. But here's where it gets controversial: Is this about genuine safety, or is Trump using it as a political cudgel against cities that oppose his views?
Three weeks later, on October 14, another press briefing targeted Boston, where games will actually be in nearby Foxborough, Massachusetts. A reporter raised a 'street takeover' event in Boston—those social media-fueled late-night gatherings where crowds do car stunts, sometimes turning violent since the Covid-19 shutdowns. This one involved police being attacked and a car set on fire. The journalist asked if this could mean losing the hosting rights for the expanded 48-team tournament, and whether Trump would collaborate with Boston's Democratic Mayor Michelle Wu.
Trump shot back, 'We could take them away,' criticizing Wu as 'radical left' and noting the takeovers as a sign of unrest. To beginners, 'street takeovers' are basically viral events where people block streets for fun, but they've escalated into safety issues in places like Massachusetts, though not everyone ties them to politics or sees them as a major threat to big events like the World Cup. Trump added that if conditions felt unsafe, he'd call Fifa boss Gianni Infantino, who he called 'phenomenal,' and suggest relocating. 'He would do that. He wouldn’t love to do it, but he’d do it. Very easily, he’d do it.' Oh, and for the first time, he hinted at possibly shifting the 2028 Olympics from Los Angeles if it wasn't 'prepared properly,' though that might require different approvals.
Now, does the U.S. president have any real sway over the World Cup or Olympics? In a nutshell: No, not on his own. The host city deals for the World Cup are contracts between Fifa, soccer's international governing body, and local governments—think of them as private business agreements, not something the president can unilaterally cancel. But, and this is the part most people miss, Trump could exert pressure. He might withhold federal funds from these cities, a tactic he's used elsewhere in his administration, or personally lobby Infantino, with whom he's built a rapport since returning to office. It's like having a powerful friend in high places who might bend the rules if asked nicely—or forcefully.
Could Fifa really relocate games from spots like Boston or Seattle? Theoretically, yes, and we know this because Seattle shared its host agreement with Fifa. Clause 4.5 in that document outlines that host cities agree to boost safety measures—like extra security, better transport, and covering financial risks—if needed. Fifa could cite this to revoke hosting if safety falls short. However, the 2026 World Cup is a massive operation: 16 cities across three countries, more teams than ever, with complex scheduling and travel logistics. Swapping venues at the last minute would be a nightmare—imagine the legal battles from affected cities, not to mention the logistical chaos. It's unlikely, but not impossible, especially with time running out.
What about the U.S. government's actual involvement? So far, it's been more about promotion and pressure than direct control. Trump set up a World Cup task force earlier this year, led by Andrew Giuliani, aimed at 'facilitating' the planning of these 'largest sporting events in mankind's history.' The feds handle visas for international visitors, but delays are so bad that many worry about approvals not coming through in time. On security, expect FBI, Homeland Security, and ICE agents bolstering local police in host cities—to add that extra layer of protection at a huge event where crowds could reach millions.
How has Fifa reacted? President Gianni Infantino has stayed silent on Trump's comments, but it's telling he joined Trump at a Gaza summit in Egypt—a move that raises eyebrows for someone whose job is supposed to focus on sports. Fifa vice-president Victor Montagliani, however, was blunt at a London event in early October, responding to the Seattle and San Francisco threats. 'It’s Fifa’s tournament, Fifa’s jurisdiction, Fifa makes those decisions,' he said. 'With all due respect to current world leaders, football is bigger than them and football will survive their regime and their government and their slogans. That’s the beauty of our game, that it is bigger than any individual and bigger than any country.' A Fifa spokesperson told Politico that safety is paramount and it's the government's job to ensure it, hoping all 16 cities will meet requirements. For her part, Boston Mayor Wu called out the threats as 'drama' and 'control,' noting contracts are ironclad against one person's whims, even the president's.
Have major events like this been relocated before? Only in extreme situations, like health crises, wars, or political upheavals. The 2003 Women's World Cup, originally slated for China, moved to the U.S. due to SARS. Fifa yanked the 2023 Under-20 World Cup from Indonesia after anti-Israel sentiment led to boycotts (Indonesia doesn't recognize Israel and supports Palestine), and Indonesia later took over the U-17 event when Peru backed out. Olympics have been canceled for wars or delayed (like Tokyo 2020 for Covid), but host cities haven't changed since 1908, when Rome's games shifted to London after Mount Vesuvius erupted. These examples show relocation is rare and tied to genuine emergencies.
Why link 'safety' to these events? Trump has made it a cornerstone of his presidency, justifying deployments of the National Guard, ICE, and others to cities like D.C. and Chicago. Safety is a valid worry at any mega-event—the World Cup could draw thousands—so it's a handy excuse for his administration. But here's the controversy: Is it truly about protection, or a way to punish cities with opposing politics? This interpretation divides opinions sharply.
What if Washington pushes harder? That could be the ultimate showdown. In other areas, like funding or policies, targeted groups often bend or negotiate with the federal government. Will Fifa or the IOC do the same if Trump follows through? It's uncharted territory, especially if he doesn't pursue it at all.
What do you think—should a president have this kind of influence over global sports events, or is it overstepping? Do you see Trump's moves as smart safety measures or political bullying? Share your views in the comments; I'd love to hear differing perspectives!
