The cities chosen to host the 2026 FIFA World Cup have tackled numerous complex challenges over the years. This includes detailed planning around federal security, counterterrorism measures, insurance, stadium upgrades, medical facilities in fan zones, and emergency evacuation strategies. Each city has dedicated a significant amount of time and resources to prepare for this significant event.
Recently, President Trump mentioned he might consider moving matches from venues he regards as “even remotely dangerous.” While at first glance this seems like a concern for safety, the reality is that shifting a match from one thoroughly vetted location to another brings about even greater risks.
Safety at large events isn’t just a one-size-fits-all label slapped onto cities. When FIFA and local organizers select host cities, they rely heavily on assessments from various security and emergency management agencies, including the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. A city deemed suitable has already proven its capability to handle potential risks, from terrorism to public health and infrastructure strains.
Simplistically declaring a city as “too dangerous” not only disregards the efforts put into safety planning but also compromises the concept of what safety is. It essentially substitutes expert opinion with a single politician’s viewpoint. For an event expected to draw millions from around the globe, planning should not be replaced with mere awareness. Relocating a game from a well-prepared city to one that has not invested in its safety could lead to a multitude of reliability issues.
First off, there are binding contractual obligations. FIFA, sponsors, broadcasters, and the host cities are all tied to agreements regarding match locations. If these agreements were to be terminated, it could lead to breach of contract claims worth billions.
Moreover, there’s the issue of tort liability. A sudden move could leave the new site unprepared, raising the risks of injuries. If an incident were to occur—be it a crowd surge, a medical emergency, or even an attack—plaintiffs could point to the negligent decision to relocate.
And don’t forget about insurance challenges. Insurers determine risk based on thorough assessments. If the venue changes unexpectedly, those evaluations become invalid, putting the organizers in a precarious position. Good luck finding someone willing to cover the risks of an unplanned venue.
Every city set to host the World Cup faces questions of “What’s the worst case scenario?” From there, planners work backward to mitigate those risks.
Can local transportation handle a large evacuation? Are hospitals equipped for sudden influxes of emergency cases? Have measures been taken to protect against cybersecurity threats? How do emergency services navigate through large crowds blocking road access?
This discussion isn’t political; it focuses on logistics and liability issues.
Additionally, the World Cup represents more than a national event. It’s a global contract involving the United States and the world community. Fans from Europe, South America, Africa, and Asia have already made travel arrangements according to the official schedule. Shifting games would not only disrupt plans but could also violate international commitments.
There could be diplomatic repercussions, too. Foreign governments may seek clarity on any moves. FIFA, already grappling with a long-standing corruption scandal, could face questions about America’s reliability in upholding its obligations. The trust in American law and order—something Mr. Trump touts—could suffer irreparably.
Fans arriving in cities unprepared for large influxes may face heightened risks of crime, emergencies, and inadequate healthcare. Emergency response plans cannot be developed overnight; they take years to finalize, test, and revise.
While flashy speeches might work in political campaigns, public safety isn’t managed like a debate. The law recognizes that difference, and the consequences of poor foresight can be serious. The chaos of a last-minute game change is, quite frankly, pretty predictable.
The 2026 World Cup is a unique chance for the United States to showcase not just its passion for soccer, but also its capacity to host safely. This safety comes from extensive logistical planning and legal agreements already in place. It’s crucial to stick to these plans, as scrapping them only elevates liability risks.
The safest option is the one already made: keeping matches in the original cities. I commend the extensive preparation that’s gone into this. Let’s trust the experts who devised these protocols. If we truly want to protect our fans, players, and the reputation of our country, the lurking danger lies not within the host city, but in the process of relocating the games.
