In order to understand how the international community could realistically pressure FIFA to move the 2026 World Cup out of the United States, I found myself examining FIFA’s broadcasting agreements and financial structure. What I discovered was not simply a story about football but a revealing glimpse into how power is exercised in the contemporary world.
The broadcasting rights for the FIFA World Cup are sold directly by FIFA to national and transnational broadcasters. Each broadcaster signs a separate bilateral agreement with FIFA. Italy’s RAI and Sky, Germany’s ARD and ZDF, France’s M6, Brazil’s Globo, and Argentina’s Telefe all negotiate independently. In North America, the rights were secured as far back as February 2015, when FIFA renewed contracts with Fox (English-language), NBCUniversal’s Telemundo (Spanish-language), and Bell Media in Canada without opening a new bidding process. In other words, a significant part of the tournament’s financial architecture was fixed more than a decade before the first ball was kicked.
This reality greatly limits the capacity of governments or citizens to influence decisions once contracts are in place. The issue is not merely FIFA’s autonomy, but the extent to which matters of broad public interest have been transferred into private contractual arrangements largely beyond democratic oversight.
China offers an intriguing contrast. In 2026, China Media Group (CMG), the parent company of CCTV, secured a multi-year agreement covering the men’s World Cups in 2026 and 2030 and the women’s tournaments in 2027 and 2031. While FIFA had reportedly sought a nine-figure fee, media reports indicated that the final agreement for the 2026 rights was worth approximately $60 million. China’s situation is distinctive because CCTV functions as a state broadcaster negotiating on behalf of the government. The state and the broadcaster operate as part of the same strategic framework, giving China a degree of concentrated negotiating leverage that countries with fragmented media systems often lack.
The episode also revealed that FIFA’s power, while immense, is not absolute. When confronted by a centralized actor capable of negotiating on behalf of one of the world’s largest media markets, FIFA adjusted its expectations dramatically.
This does not mean China is “more powerful” than Germany or other Western democracies. Rather, it highlights how differently power is organized. In liberal democracies, authority over broadcasting is typically dispersed among governments, regulators, and private media corporations, each pursuing its own interests. In China, those interests can be aligned through a single negotiating actor — and that alignment translates directly into leverage.
The result raises difficult questions about sovereignty in an age of globalization. Formal democratic institutions continue to exist, but their capacity to shape outcomes in domains now governed by multinational contracts and private institutions appears diminished. The contrast is not simply between China and the West — it is a question of whether dispersed authority can still coordinate effectively enough to influence global organizations whose decisions increasingly shape public life.
The contradictions become even more visible in FIFA’s relationship with the United States. For over a year, FIFA maintained offices in New York’s Trump Tower, with rent flowing to Donald Trump’s family business. FIFA President Gianni Infantino publicly praised Donald Trump and even awarded him a newly created “FIFA Peace Prize,” gestures widely interpreted as efforts to ensure smoother tournament operations and deepen football’s presence in the world’s largest consumer market.
At the same time, when Trump suggested that matches could be relocated from cities he considered unsafe, FIFA officials quickly reaffirmed the organization’s autonomy. FIFA Vice-President Victor Montagliani responded that “it’s FIFA’s tournament” and that only FIFA could make such decisions, adding: “With all due respect to current world leaders, football is bigger than them.”
The episode exposed a central tension within FIFA. The organization insists on political neutrality while simultaneously engaging in political relationships whenever they serve strategic or commercial objectives. Critics argue that this balancing act has come at the expense of FIFA’s credibility and independence.
FIFA’s internal governance presents another paradox. Its Congress is composed of 209 member associations operating under the principle of “one association, one vote.” A small island nation possesses the same voting power as Germany or Brazil. The principle was designed to ensure global representation and prevent domination by the most powerful football countries. Yet it also disperses accountability and grants FIFA’s leadership considerable operational freedom.
The result is an organization that appears democratic in form but highly centralized in practice. Major football nations generate much of the sport’s revenue and audience, yet possess limited leverage over FIFA’s strategic direction.
Under Gianni Infantino, that strategic direction has become increasingly clear. FIFA sees the United States not simply as a host nation but as the world’s largest untapped consumer market for football. The organization’s ambitions point toward a deeper American footprint, not away from it.
Yet there is another asymmetry at the heart of the World Cup. For all its global reach and transnational governance, the tournament is ultimately made possible by local realities: city stadiums, public transportation, security personnel, workers, volunteers, and infrastructure. Local taxpayers often help finance improvements, local authorities manage logistics and security, and local workers ensure that the tournament functions day after day.
At the same time, the most important financial decisions are negotiated and managed through international institutions often far removed from these local concerns. Those who bear much of the responsibility for hosting the spectacle frequently have the least influence over how it is organized and governed.
What began as a question about FIFA became a question about democracy itself. As power migrates into global networks of contracts, media rights, and private institutions, democratic societies face a profound challenge: how to ensure that the public interest can still shape decisions that affect public life. Otherwise, we may discover that the problem is not that citizens have lost their voice, but that the places where their voices once mattered have quietly moved beyond their reach.
Selected Sources
FIFA broadcasting agreements in North America
Richard Deitsch, “FIFA grants Fox, Telemundo U.S. TV rights for World Cup through 2026,” Sports Illustrated, 12 February 2015.
https://www.si.com/soccer/2015/02/12/fifa-fox-usa-tv-rights-world-cup-2026-telemundo
Matt Bonesteel, “FIFA extends U.S. World Cup TV deal with Fox and Telemundo through 2026,” The Washington Post, 12 February 2015.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2015/02/12/fifa-extends-u-s-world-cup-tv-deal-with-fox-and-telemundo-through-2026/
China Media Group (CMG/CCTV) and FIFA rights negotiations
Reuters, “China state broadcaster secures World Cup broadcasting rights, local media says,” 15 May 2026.
https://www.reuters.com/sports/soccer/china-state-broadcaster-secures-world-cup-broadcasting-rights-local-media-says-2026-05-15/
FIFA, “China Media Group confirmed as official broadcaster for FIFA tournaments through 2031.”
https://inside.fifa.com/
Associated Press, “FIFA finally seals World Cup broadcast deal in China at just $60 million,” 15 May 2026.
https://apnews.com/article/c516a5e27392e6220afdb433351c5f9b
NDTV Sports, “FIFA strikes CCTV deal to end China’s 2026 World Cup blackout.”
https://sports.ndtv.com/us/fifa/fifa-strikes-cctv-deal-to-end-chinas-2026-world-cup-blackout-11502116
FIFA, Trump, and political proximity
The New York Times, reporting on FIFA’s lease of office space in Trump Tower during preparations for the 2026 World Cup.
The Atlantic, “Trump’s World Cup,” June 2026.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2026/06/trump-soccer-world-cup-fifa/687450/
FIFA Peace Prize
FIFA, “President Donald J. Trump awarded FIFA Peace Prize – Football Unites the World,” December 2025.
FIFA’s autonomy over tournament decisions
Reuters, “FIFA VP says organization decides World Cup cities despite Trump’s comments,” October 2025.
Victor Montagliani stated:
“It’s FIFA’s tournament.”
He added:
“With all due respect to current world leaders, football is bigger than them.”
