US Entry Bans Shadow the 2026 World Cup

The 2026 FIFA World Cup, spread across the United States, Mexico and Canada, was poised to ignite a global football fever. Yet, the drama unfolding off the pitch—especially the United States’ refusal to grant entry to Somali referee Omar Artan—has drawn sharp criticism from human rights observers and sports officials alike.

Why It Matters

Artan, a celebrated CAF referee of 2025 and the first Somali to officiate a World Cup match, arrived in Miami with a valid visa and all necessary documents. U.S. Customs and Border Protection questioned him for hours, then denied his entry on the grounds of undisclosed “vetting concerns.” He was sent back to Istanbul, and FIFA confirmed he would not be able to officiate the tournament.

This incident underscores a larger trend: American immigration policy has dramatically tightened since the administration that expanded the travel ban from 20 to 39 countries, including Somalia, Iraq and Iran. The ban places nationals from these countries under heightened scrutiny for even the most routine travel.

Global Reactions

FIFA’s response was cautious. “A host government ultimately determines who receives a visa,” the organization said, essentially leaving the decision to U.S. authorities. Critics, such as former FIFA Governance Commission chairman Mark Pieth, slammed the move as a violation of the sport’s universal spirit. “A World Cup should welcome all who qualify, regardless of nationality,” Pieth remarked.

Human rights advocates also weighed in. Maja Liebing of Amnesty International called the policy “racist” because it disproportionately targets African and Muslim-majority nations. She highlighted that the U.S. has no obligation to impede those feeding the global contest, especially when the referees and players in question come with clean records.

Implications for Hosting

The denial raises bitter questions about the United States’ capacity to host a truly inclusive event. Not only were Somali officials rebuffed, but Iran’s federation reported “vindictive behavior” after multiple staff member visas were denied. Iranian teams were forced to relocate their base to Tijuana, Mexico, adding logistical burdens and diplomatic tension.

Such selective enforcement risks alienating fans and participants from affected nations, undermining the core ethos of international sports. It also forces FIFA’s hands, revealing the limits of its power over sovereign governments.

Lessons from History

Comparisons have been drawn to the 1980 and 1984 Olympic boycotts and South Africa’s apartheid-era ban from FIFA. In those cases, sports bodies used exclusion as pressure. In 2026, the host nation holds the power to open or close its gates, leaving a lingering sense of politicized sport.

Conclusion

The 2026 World Cup has become a microcosm of larger geopolitical disputes. While the United Nations and FIFA aim to keep football a neutral ground, the US’s restrictive immigration stance and the subsequent barring of a prominent Somali referee illuminate that the field remains intersected by politics and prejudice. Embracing the sport’s unifying potential will require a commitment to fairness, transparency, and genuine inclusivity that transcends borders.