Published on: Tue, 07 Jul 2026 00:22:00 GMT
Original Story: Trump’s World Cup intervention has ruined the game | Robert Reich – The Guardian

World Cup: Trump’s Game, Everyone Else Loses

Alright, folks, gather ’round. Grab your lukewarm coffee, because we’re about to dissect another gem from the endless political theater that insists on spilling into every single facet of our existence. Today’s feature presentation: how the beautiful game, soccer, apparently needed a political enema from a certain former president, thereby, according to Robert Reich, being utterly “ruined.” Because, you know, we just can’t have nice things, especially not global sporting events that are meant to transcend the petty squabbles of geopolitics. Nope, not on his watch.

Oh, Good. More Politics In Our “Escapism.”

Honestly, sometimes you just want to watch people kick a ball around without having to worry about who offended whom in the Oval Office last Tuesday. Is that too much to ask? Apparently, yes. Because, as Reich articulates, when Donald J. Trump decides to “intervene” in something, it’s not just a friendly suggestion. It’s usually a full-blown, take-no-prisoners, “my way or the highway” kind of situation. And in this particular instance, the “highway” might just lead directly to a significant decline in the integrity and joy of the World Cup.

Remember When Sports Were… Just Sports?

Cast your mind back, if you can, to a simpler time. A time when the biggest controversy in international soccer was whether the referee was blind or just secretly French. Now, thanks to the delightful tapestry of modern geopolitics interwoven with the former guy’s unique brand of diplomacy, we’re discussing how political strong-arming can effectively gut the spirit of one of the planet’s most beloved tournaments. Reich’s piece points directly to how Trump’s involvement in securing the 2026 World Cup bid for the United States, Mexico, and Canada wasn’t just a matter of lobbying; it was a brazen display of political leverage, complete with thinly veiled threats and a heavy dose of “America First” exceptionalism.

Let’s not forget the context here. Back in 2018, when the vote was looming for the 2026 hosts, Trump didn’t mince words. He openly threatened countries that might not vote for the “United Bid” – essentially telling them that their allegiance (or lack thereof) would have consequences for their diplomatic relations with the U.S. He tweeted, and I paraphrase slightly, “It would be a shame if countries we always support lobbied against the U.S. bid. Why should we support these countries when they don’t support us (including at the United Nations)?” Subtlety, thy name is not Trump. This wasn’t a gentleman’s agreement; it was a political shakedown, broadcast for all the world to see.

When Winning Becomes a Political Transaction

Now, some might argue, “Hey, that’s just how the game is played! It’s cutthroat, and you do what you have to do to win.” And sure, there’s always an element of horse-trading in big international decisions. But when a nation’s leader explicitly ties a sporting vote to broader diplomatic and economic relationships, it fundamentally alters the nature of the competition. It stops being about the best stadiums, the most passionate fans, or the logistical capabilities, and starts being about who has the biggest stick to wave. It turns a celebrated global event into just another bargaining chip in the grand casino of international relations.

The “ruining” aspect, as Reich and many others see it, isn’t necessarily that the US-Mexico-Canada bid won. It’s *how* it won. When the specter of political retaliation hangs over a vote, it taints the legitimacy of the outcome. It fosters resentment, undermines fair play, and ultimately strips away the very essence of what makes the World Cup so special: a rare moment where nations set aside their differences to compete on a level playing field, celebrating athletic prowess and shared passion. Instead, we got a stark reminder that even in sports, the political heavyweights can just… change the rules.

My, How the Goalposts Have Moved. (Again.)

And here, my friends, is where the exquisite irony truly blossoms. Because the former President, who so eagerly intervened to twist arms for a sports bid, spent a significant chunk of his political career railing against the very concept of “globalism” and the perceived overreach of international bodies. It’s a contradiction so glaring, you almost need sunglasses to look directly at it.

“America First” or “Trump First, Everywhere”?

Remember 2016? Oh, you know you do. The year of “Make America Great Again,” the year where “globalism” became a dirty word hurled from rally stages across the country. Trump’s campaign rhetoric was singularly focused on dismantling multilateral agreements, pulling out of international organizations, and decrying foreign interference in American sovereignty. He portrayed groups like the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, and even NATO as behemoths undermining national interests, dictating terms, and generally making a mess of things. The message was clear: America should be sovereign, self-reliant, and certainly not beholden to the whims of international bodies or their “globalist” agendas.

He famously declared, “We will no longer surrender our country, or our people, to the false song of globalism.” He lambasted international agreements as bad deals, bad for America, and pushed for an “America First” isolationist stance, particularly when it came to trade and foreign policy. The consistent theme was about reducing American entanglement and influence *from* these international structures, not *into* them.

And yet, here we are. The same individual who warned against the insidious nature of globalism, who sought to extricate the U.S. from various international pacts, didn’t hesitate to plunge headfirst into the very heart of an international sporting federation, FIFA, to exert maximum political pressure. It wasn’t about FIFA’s autonomy, or the spirit of fair global competition. It was about leveraging American power, pure and simple, to secure a perceived win. The globalists he so vehemently criticized were, suddenly, fair game for his own brand of “interventionism,” provided it aligned with his immediate political objectives.

It’s almost poetic, isn’t it? The man who wanted America out of global entanglements was perfectly happy to entangle America *with* global sports, using the very tools of international influence he often condemned. The “truth” he espoused was one of national sovereignty and non-interference; the “reality” of his actions was a very selective application of that principle. When it came to a World Cup bid, suddenly the global stage wasn’t a threat, but a playground for presidential power moves. What’s good for the goose, apparently, is only good for the gander if the gander is wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat.

This isn’t just about hypocrisy, though that’s certainly a strong flavor in this particular cocktail. It’s about a fundamental distortion of reality, where principles are fluid, dependent entirely on the perceived immediate benefit. Globalism is bad when it constrains you, but perfectly acceptable when it allows you to strong-arm others. It’s a playbook we’ve seen before, and frankly, it’s exhausting.

The Ripple Effect: Beyond the Goal

The long-term implications are, predictably, not great. When you politicize something as universally beloved as the World Cup, you erode its foundational trust. Other nations and future bidders will now be acutely aware that the “rules” can be bent or broken by raw political power, not just merit. It sets a dangerous precedent, transforming what should be a celebration of sport into another arena for geopolitical maneuvering. And for those of us who just wanted to enjoy a good match without a side of international incident, well, we’re left with a distinctly bitter aftertaste. The beautiful game, indeed, feels a little less beautiful when you know the score was settled not on the pitch, but in a political backroom, with a tweet serving as the final whistle.