In less than 100 days, the FIFA World Cup is set to kick off in host cities across North America. FIFA is anticipating 6.5 million total attendees at the 104 matches held over the course of five weeks, and teams from 48 countries are slated to participate.

This year’s event is sure to draw the eyes of football fans around the world while also creating a platform for sports, politics, and diplomacy to collide. Recent shifts in U.S. immigration enforcement, ongoing military operations in Iran, and the recent death of a cartel leader in Mexico are all part of the backdrop leading up to this year’s games and have already caused tension among World Cup organizers, fans, and athletes.

To better understand the security implications of the event, the potential for boycotts, and the role of athletes as diplomats, we asked SIS professor and diplomacy expert Robert Kelley a few questions.

This year’s World Cup will host a total of 48 teams—a record number. Can you discuss how events like this act as a platform for soft power and how athletes serve as diplomats in these settings?

From a political standpoint, the World Cup and other international sporting events of the kind represent instances of sports diplomacy, which is essentially the pursuit of political goals through the social activities and institutions of sport. The ‘social’ part is by design, a kind of investment of diplomatic agency and power in the public space and into people who do not conduct diplomacy, traditionally speaking, but can exert a great deal of influence in their own way. That influence is what Argentina gains from Lionel Messi, or France from Kylian Mbappe—a positive association between an admired sports hero and their nationality, and that association bestows benefits upon the nation as a whole. That is a classic manifestation of soft power, which is rooted in appeal and attraction. 

One of the main reasons why Mexico is hosting the World Cup now for the third time, arguably, is its longtime success in international soccer combined with its cultural appeal as one of the most visited nations in the world. Used wisely, that kind of capital can be converted for political, economic, trade, and security purposes.

Given the sheer size and the number of countries represented in this year’s World Cup, what are the topline security concerns for running this event?

Let’s start with the truly unprecedented magnitude of what is already a massive international sporting event: There will be 48 nations represented at this year’s World Cup consisting of 104 matches taking place in 16 host cities across the three different countries—the United States, Mexico, and Canada. The ambition here is absolutely staggering. Gianni Infantino, the president of the international soccer governing body FIFA, mused that this would be the viewing equivalent of 104 Super Bowls in 28 days. Of course, a good number of the matches won’t drive Super Bowl-level interest and spectacle. That said, the security effort behind the entire production must meet the challenge with cooperation at all levels of law enforcement and intelligence to ensure the safety of the teams, fans, and host cities. Most sports fans can attest to the many security measures of match day, such as a bulked-up police presence, traffic management, inspections upon entry, and on-field security; the World Cup will be no different. Two key differences this time around: first, the heightened border control of the Trump administration while also accommodating the cross-border movements of international players and their fans, some of whom are already subject to visa restrictions and travel bans. And second, recent cartel violence in Mexico and U.S. military action in Iran add more potentially troublesome layers to the security climate surrounding these matches.

The federal government initially delayed awarding hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts earmarked for security during the World Cup. The funding was finally released in mid-March. What are the risks associated with funding delays for security?

In the U.S., most of the security on the ground will come from municipalities, whose police forces must be properly trained and equipped to handle the onslaught of soccermania. And they must be paid: the U.S. Department of Homeland Security released, on March 12, the $625 million in federal funds to be divided across all American host cities to help absorb the enormous cost. Local, state, and commercial sources of funding also must flow to all security functions to give them enough time to prepare. Time is getting tight: any additional holdups in funding will further hinder planning and expose everyone to greater risk. 

Additionally, concerns surrounding security at World Cup games scheduled in Mexico have risen following the death of notorious drug cartel leader El Mencho. How are officials currently working to address these concerns?

After a wave of violence that engulfed Mexico in the days following the killing of El Mencho on February 22, FIFA and the Mexican government have been steadily deploying the rhetoric of reassurance. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum asserted that security has been restored in Guadalajara, which saw some of the fiercest violence and is one of three Mexican cites scheduled to host World Cup matches. On March 6, Mexico laid out its plan to amass a security force of 100,000 for the World Cup. Sheinbaum visited Guadalajara to alleviate concerns, and Infantino has expressed his “full confidence” that the games in Mexico continue as planned. Guadalajara will be hosting preliminary international matches from March 26–28. We will see how they unfold.

There have been numerous threats by participating countries—most recently Iran—to boycott this year’s World Cup over policies enacted and actions taken by the U.S. presidential administration. Is it likely these boycotts will come to pass? Why, or why not? 

Not likely. Despite all the plot twists that could steal the thunder of the World Cup—exorbitant costs, travel complications, security flare-ups, and of course international conflicts—there appears to be little appetite to sit out this grand affair. Even Iran, whose team’s security in the United States has not been guaranteed by President Trump, as of now is speaking not of a boycott but rather relocation of their originally scheduled games, currently to take place in the United States, to Mexico. Any national football federations privately expressing reservations have been seemingly placated by FIFA and the ostensible benefits of remaining in the contest, which can be considerable. It has been Infantino’s mission to keep this production on course at all costs and the distractions out.