World Cup attendance: The potential 2028ers
Josh Shapiro and Marco Rubio have got World Cup fever.
Josh Shapiro and Marco Rubio have got World Cup fever.
Read Full Story at Politico →Why This Matters
The sudden diplomatic embrace of the World Cup by U.S. political figures like Josh Shapiro and Marco Rubio signals more than just sports enthusiasm—it reflects a calculated effort to leverage global soft power through the world’s most-watched sporting event. As nations jockey for influence in an era of fractured alliances, hosting (or merely aligning with) a World Cup bid becomes a proxy for cultural and economic relevance.
Background Context
The U.S. has never hosted the FIFA World Cup since its modern inception in 1930, despite being the world’s largest soccer market by participation and viewership. Meanwhile, the 2026 tournament—co-hosted by the U.S., Canada, and Mexico—will be the first time the event expands to 48 teams, a move FIFA made to globalize the sport but one that also dilutes the prestige of any single host nation’s role.
What Happens Next
If Shapiro or Rubio’s public backing translates into tangible support for future World Cup bids, it could signal a bipartisan pivot toward prioritizing FIFA’s governance challenges—from human rights criticisms to commercial expansions—in exchange for strategic influence. Yet with FIFA’s opaque bidding processes and geopolitical tensions rising, even vocal support may struggle to overcome the logistical and ethical hurdles that have derailed past campaigns.
Bigger Picture
The World Cup’s intersection with politics is nothing new, but the stakes are higher now as authoritarian regimes and democratic nations alike weaponize sporting events to burnish their global personas. The U.S. political class’s sudden interest may reflect a recognition that soccer’s ascendancy in America is no longer just a cultural shift—it’s a geopolitical opportunity to shape narratives on the world stage.
