Infantino hits back at critics after the World Cup: Accuses them of spreading hatred
ZURICH, July 27, 2026. FIFA President Gianni Infantino responded to the wave of criticism surrounding the 2026 FIFA World Cup with a message in which he described the tournament as a global celebration of sport, family and unity. In a statement published by FIFA on July 26, one week after the final in New York and New Jersey, Infantino claimed that certain critics had focused so heavily on negative issues that they had failed to appreciate the emotions and atmosphere of football's biggest competition. He accused journalists, commentators and social media users of spreading what he described as hatred and false rumours, while FIFA was simultaneously organising the tournament in Canada, Mexico and the United States of America. His message was not merely an expression of gratitude to the hosts and supporters, but also an open confrontation with criticism concerning ticket prices, visa problems, his relationship with US President Donald Trump and suspicions of political influence over the football organisation's decisions.
In his concluding address, Infantino repeated a familiar argument from his presidential tenure: according to his interpretation, FIFA does not merely organise a sporting competition, but an event capable of overcoming political, social and national divisions. He highlighted the images of children, parents and older supporters in the stands, billions of television viewers and the full involvement of the host cities. He told critics that while they divide the public, FIFA brings people together, and a particularly sharp part of his message concerned the claim that individuals had been "planting seeds of hatred" during the tournament. He urged them to reflect, meditate, pray or simply observe the emotions at a football match more carefully. Such a tone demonstrates that the end of the championship did not calm the months-long debate over the way Infantino runs FIFA, but instead carried it into a new phase.
Record attendance and Spain's title as the foundation of FIFA's defence
FIFA bases its assessment of the championship's success primarily on the scale of the tournament and its attendance. According to the organisation's official figures, a total of 6,810,966 spectators attended 104 matches in 16 cities, setting an attendance record in World Cup history. Infantino rounded the figure up to seven million people from more than 200 countries and claimed that the stadiums and host cities were safe and filled with a positive atmosphere. The organisation also emphasised the nearly full stands during the closing stages, the high average attendance and the fact that the first championship featuring 48 national teams delivered more matches and a broader geographical reach than previous editions. Those figures undoubtedly give FIFA a strong argument in the debate over commercial and organisational success, but they do not in themselves answer questions about ticket accessibility, visas or governance independence.
The tournament ended on July 19 with Spain defeating Argentina 1-0 after extra time at the stadium in New York and New Jersey. According to FIFA's official report, Ferran Torres scored the decisive goal in the 106th minute, securing Spain's second world championship title. The final was the 104th match of the championship and a symbolic conclusion to the first edition expanded to 48 national teams. For Infantino, the sporting side of the tournament proves that the new format lived up to expectations, especially because national teams from outside football's traditionally most powerful centres gained greater visibility in the competition. His message specifically mentions smaller countries and Haiti, whose participation was presented as confirmation that the World Cup can offer an international stage to states that rarely find themselves at the centre of global attention.
The claim of complete safety and the limits of a triumphant message
Infantino claimed in his message that there had been no violence, hostility or security incidents at the championship. This is an exceptionally broad statement made by the president of the organising body and should be viewed as part of FIFA's official assessment of the tournament, rather than as an independent security analysis of all events across the 16 cities. Major sporting competitions involve millions of arrivals, local police operations, protests, traffic disruptions and various individual cases that may not all appear in the organisers' consolidated communications. Nevertheless, the fact that the competition took place in three countries, across vast distances and under complex security requirements without interruptions to key matches represents an important logistical achievement. Infantino credited the authorities of Canada, Mexico and the United States, police services, volunteers and FIFA employees.
The problem with his message is not that it highlights the successful aspects of the championship, but that it often reduces criticism to hatred or the deliberate creation of divisions. Some objections came from supporters' organisations, football associations, politicians, international institutions and sports governance experts, and concerned specific decisions and procedures. Criticism of ticket prices, for example, was not merely an expression of dissatisfaction with a result or the organiser, but a debate about who can afford access to an event that FIFA presents as universal. The same applies to visas: several controversial cases did not negate millions of approved journeys, but they raised the question of whether a global tournament can fulfil its promise of inclusivity if certain officials, team members or supporters cannot enter the host country. Infantino's defence therefore functions simultaneously as a celebration of a genuinely major sporting event and an attempt to place different forms of institutional criticism under the same label of negativity.
Visas remained one of the championship's most sensitive issues
The best-known visa case before the start of the tournament was that of Somali referee Omar Abdulkadir Artan. US authorities denied him entry to the United States after an additional security review, even though he had been appointed to participate in the championship. FIFA confirmed at the time that Artan would not be able to train or officiate and stressed that it had no authority over the host country's immigration procedures. The Associated Press reported that US authorities had explained the decision by citing concerns arising from the security review, without publicly disclosing details. The case gained additional significance because Artan was due to become the first Somali referee at a men's World Cup.
In his concluding message, Infantino responded that critics had placed excessive emphasis on a small number of rejected applications while ignoring millions of approved entries. He specifically highlighted Iran's arrival in the United States and argued that football had made the encounter possible despite serious political and security tensions between the two countries. Even before the championship, he had defended FIFA's limited influence over national borders, saying that a sports organisation cannot order governments whom they must allow into their country. That legal and institutional limitation is real, but critics believe that FIFA, as the owner of one of the world's most valuable sporting events, should have secured stronger and more transparent access guarantees for accredited participants in advance. The debate will also be important for future major competitions because it shows how the promise of global accessibility can collide with national immigration and security policies.
Expensive tickets and the question of whom the World Cup belongs to
Ticket prices were among the most persistent sources of dissatisfaction even before the first match. The Associated Press reported that, following global criticism, FIFA introduced a limited category of $60 tickets for loyal national-team supporters, including for the final, while some tickets previously offered for the final match had reached $4,185. Supporters' groups warned that the number of cheaper seats was small in relation to the stadium's capacity and overall demand, and that most travellers remained exposed to historically high costs. Further disputes were caused by dynamic pricing, fees on the resale platform and refund rules for packages covering possible national-team matches through to the closing stages. FIFA subsequently relaxed some of those rules, which critics interpreted as evidence that the initial policy had been adopted without sufficient consultation with supporters.
Infantino defended the prices by claiming that large numbers of cheaper tickets would end up on the black market and that World Cup revenue finances football development in countries without strong commercial leagues. Before the start of the competition, he stated that demand exceeded supply many times over and that the average price was comparable to US playoffs in other sports. Critics, however, warned that such a comparison disregards the global nature of the World Cup, the differing purchasing power of supporters and the tradition of national-team groups travelling from dozens of countries. Record sales can therefore confirm the product's market strength, but not necessarily its accessibility. This very conflict between maximising revenue and the idea of football as a shared global good remained at the centre of a debate that Infantino's concluding message did not resolve.
The relationship with Donald Trump developed into a question of political neutrality
Infantino's closeness to Donald Trump was visible during the preparations for and the championship itself. The FIFA president publicly thanked the US president for supporting the organisation of the tournament, and their relationship attracted additional attention after Trump was presented with the first FIFA Peace Prize in December 2025. Critics argued that such actions blurred the line between necessary cooperation with the government of a key host country and political alignment by the president of an international sports organisation. Zurich-based FIFA emphasises political neutrality in its rules, meaning that the symbolic gestures and public appearances of its leader became the subject of complaints and demands for ethical review. Infantino, on the other hand, presents his relationship with Trump as a practical prerequisite for resolving the tournament's security, visa and logistical issues.
The greatest controversy erupted after US forward Folarin Balogun was sent off against Bosnia and Herzegovina. Trump publicly admitted that he had called Infantino and asked for the punishment to be reviewed, after which FIFA's disciplinary process allowed Balogun to play against Belgium. FIFA and Infantino claimed that the decision had been made by an independent judicial body within the organisation, but UEFA, Belgian football officials, some Members of the European Parliament and numerous former football figures questioned the appearance of impartiality. The Associated Press reported that the case prompted calls for an investigation into possible political pressure, while some critics called on Infantino to resign. The United States eventually lost 4-1 to Belgium, but the result did not eliminate the institutional question: can the mere contact between a political leader and the FIFA president before a disciplinary decision is changed undermine confidence in the equal application of the rules?
In his concluding message, Infantino does not dwell on Balogun's name, but he is clearly also responding to that affair. He wrote that controversial refereeing and disciplinary decisions are common in major leagues and that the countries from which the criticism comes accept similar procedures themselves. In doing so, he attempted to normalise the decision as part of football's judicial system rather than political favouritism. Nevertheless, the centre of the controversy was never merely whether the red card had been incorrect, but the sequence of events and the perception of access to power. When the president of a host country can directly contact FIFA's leader about an individual case, the transparency standard must be higher precisely in order to protect the credibility of independent bodies.
Communication that mobilises supporters but deepens distrust
Infantino has previously responded to criticism of major tournaments with personal and polemical appearances. His style combines appeals to football's universal power, a defence of FIFA's financial model and attacks on the motives of critics. Such communication is effective among associations and supporters who believe that the international media focus too heavily on the hosts' problems and too little on the sporting and developmental impact of the competition. At the same time, equating verifiable questions with hatred can deepen public distrust because it creates the impression that the organisation does not distinguish between malicious rumours and legitimate scrutiny. For an institution that controls billions of dollars, decides on hosting rights and influences hundreds of national associations, critical reporting is not an obstacle to its work, but part of its accountability.
The 2026 World Cup genuinely produced scenes of mass celebration, record attendance and sporting stories that will mark the history of the competition. At the same time, it demonstrated how closely modern mega-events are connected with migration policy, commercial strategies, security regimes and the personal relationships of the most powerful people in sport and politics. Infantino's message attempts to subordinate all those tensions to a simple image of football overcoming divisions. For his supporters, it is a confident defence of a successfully organised tournament; for critics, it is a missed opportunity for FIFA to answer precisely the questions that will not disappear with the end of the final match. The debate will therefore continue in Zurich, national associations and international institutions, particularly regarding the transparency of disciplinary decisions, political neutrality and the accessibility of future championships to supporters from around the world.
Sources:
- FIFA – official message from Gianni Infantino following the 2026 World Cup (link)
- FIFA – official figures on the final, Spain's title and the tournament's total attendance (link)
- Associated Press – report on ticket prices, supporters' criticism and the introduction of a limited $60 category (link)
- Associated Press – report on Somali referee Omar Artan being denied entry and the positions of FIFA and the US authorities (link)
- Associated Press – report on the controversy surrounding Folarin Balogun's suspension and questions of political influence (link)
- Le Monde – report on an ethics complaint over alleged breaches of political neutrality and Infantino's relationship with Donald Trump (link)
- The Guardian – report from Infantino's pre-tournament press conference concerning visas, ticket prices and his relationship with Donald Trump (link)