The 2026 FIFA World Cup was accompanied by a number of controversies mostly relating to FIFA ticket pricing, political, logistical, environmental, and human rights issues across its three host nations—the United States, Mexico, and Canada. It has been called the most controversial World Cup. Many venues were criticized for inadequate public transit access. Mandatory hydration breaks introduced in response to extreme heat concerns became a source of criticism after broadcasters used them to air commercials. Environmental groups projected the expanded 48-team tournament to be among the most carbon-intensive in World Cup history. Additional concerns included labor disputes at SoFi Stadium, security and infrastructure issues in all three host nations, Mexican cartel-related unrest in Guadalajara, cost overruns in Canadian host cities, and the restriction of the Spanish language at official press conferences, despite Spanish being one of FIFA's seven official languages and the primary language of co-host Mexico.
Commercial and ticketing controversies
Ticket prices One of the most prominent disputes was FIFA's use of dynamic pricing for tickets—with tickets to the final at MetLife Stadium listed at up to $11,000—which drew criticism from fans, politicians, and players and prompted investigations by multiple U.S. state attorneys general. In September 2025, FIFA confirmed it would use dynamic pricing for World Cup tickets for the first time, following the practice used in the 2025 FIFA Club World Cup. The use of demand-based pricing drew criticism from some United States lawmakers, who argued that it could reduce affordability for fans. FIFA stated that its variable pricing approach differed from fully dynamic pricing, as adjustments were made based on periodic reviews of demand rather than automatic real-time changes.
Fans and players voiced concerns about high ticket prices, particularly for matches hosted in the United States. FIFA's use of dynamic pricing and their own secondary market were criticized as a deviation from the previous first-come, first-served model. President Donald Trump questioned the fees charged by FIFA and stated that he would not pay a thousand dollars to watch the United States' opening match. New York mayor Zohran Mamdani attempted to combat FIFA's price gouging by campaigning for the organization to end its dynamic pricing model, albeit to no avail. House Democrats also called on FIFA to lower prices, but were ignored by the organization. Also joining the inquiry into the price gouging were the attorneys general of New York (Letitia James), New Jersey (Jennifer Davenport), Texas (Ken Paxton), and California (Rob Bonta).
FIFA was heavily criticized by the media and fans for raising ticket prices for the final match at MetLife Stadium, with a single ticket costing US$11,000. United States midfielder Timothy Weah stated that tickets were "too expensive", criticisms that were dismissed by manager Mauricio Pochettino, causing backlash from American fans. In May 2026, FIFA president Gianni Infantino defended the price of tickets, insisting the organization "had to apply market rates".
The high ticket prices were seen as a possible cause for empty seats seen during multiple matches. While the opening match was played in a full stadium, the second match showed thousands of empty seats, again raising concerns about high ticket prices. In an official statement by FIFA regarding the empty seats, they stated that this was due to "several ticketed fans standing in concourses rather than staying in their assigned seats". This statement drew scrutiny, even more so when thousands of empty seats were visible again during the first match by host nation Canada. Several other reasons were given for the empty seating, including people sheltering from the heat. Many empty hospitality seats were seen during the match between the Netherlands and Japan, which were filled by FIFA volunteers ten minutes into the match after they had been allowed to occupy the seats.
Final match halftime show
FIFA announced that there would be a halftime show for the World Cup final, similar to the NFL's Super Bowl halftime show. It was the first halftime show in the history of the FIFA World Cup. This was criticized as an Americanization and commercialization of the sport, and for going against general IFAB protocol, which in the codified Laws of the Game stated that the halftime could not exceed 15 minutes.
Bottle bans FIFA initially announced a ban on reusable water bottles inside all stadiums during the 2026 World Cup, stating that the bottles posed a safety hazard as they could be thrown and cause injuries. The decision was widely criticized, as most games would be played during the hottest hours of the day, raising concerns about hydration, spectator welfare, and environmental impact. FIFA responded that it would provide hydration stations, cooling areas, and other measures. Later, FIFA stated that spectators in the United States and Canada could bring factory-sealed plastic water bottles into stadiums.
Climate and environmental impact
Climate In January 2025, Queen's University Belfast warned about potential heat risks for most of the host cities and urged FIFA to schedule match kickoffs later into the afternoon or evening, stating that the wet-bulb globe temperature in certain host cities was higher than that of Qatar in the winter. During the 2025 FIFA Club World Cup, which was also hosted in the United States, several matches reported high temperatures ranging from and weather delays. On May 20, 2026, a letter from the New Weather Institute signed by dozens of players called for FIFA to take stronger action on heat protocols during the tournament, as well as to reduce the climate impact of the game.
Hydration breaks In December 2025, FIFA announced that all matches at the 2026 World Cup would include a mandatory three-minute hydration break in each half to allow players to rest in hot conditions. Despite the reported initial motivation behind the break as the players' welfare, many media sources largely interpreted the break to provide a period of tactical instruction midway through the half. Momentum appeared to shift significantly after the break, and, in the first matchday, there were a total of 170 shots between the hydration break and halftime, compared to just 115 shots from the start of matches to the hydration break. In addition, the breaks came under criticism, particularly when being implemented in all stadiums, including the air-conditioned ones. During the group stage match between Ghana and Panama in Toronto, supporters began booing the hydration break as it took place despite heavy rain; a large portion of these breaks across the tournament went on to be booed by spectators in attendance.
The three-minute period would also be available for commercials at the discretion of tournament broadcasters. During the tournament, several broadcasters used the break to air commercials, although FIFA requested that broadcasters return to the match 30 seconds before play resumed. This sparked criticism from fans, who argued that it disrupted the pace of play and allowed broadcasters to extract added advertising revenue. Some fans reported missing the resumption of play after broadcasters failed to return from commercials before play resumed.
During hydration breaks, commercials made by U.S. English-language broadcaster Fox Network (which also included FS1 and FS2) were the subject of scrutiny by viewers who were watching the matches at home, and viewers harshly criticized the network for lengthy commercial breaks that had drawn out before the match had resumed (although multiple international broadcasters also inserted ads into those breaks). U.S. Spanish-language broadcaster Telemundo, on the other hand, never showed commercials during those breaks, with its announcers actively mentioning so during each. In addition, Telemundo's coverage was streamed on the cheaper Peacock service at a $10.99 per month subscription versus Fox's coverage streamed on Fox One at $19.99 per month. It was thus reported that at least 20 percent of Telemundo's viewers stated that English was their primary language instead of Spanish, leading to "tensions" between Fox/FS1/FS2/Fox One's parent company the Fox Corporation, and Telemundo/Peacock's parent company NBCUniversal. As a result, FIFA bundled the U.S. English and Spanish rights together for the next World Cups to increase their bids.
Air quality during the final Prior to the final, there were concerns that smoke from the 2026 Canadian wildfires would affect the air quality of the final and impact player performance. Spain decided to practice under the smoke, while Argentina practiced in Atlanta to avoid the smoke. FIFA president Gianni Infantino met with US president Donald Trump and World Cup Task Force leader Andrew Giuliani to discuss the wildfires. At the time, New York and New Jersey were under air quality alerts, and air quality readings in New York City were deemed "very unhealthy" and well beyond levels deemed dangerous to the general public. But the day prior to the final, due to heavy thunderstorms passing through the venue for the final, the amount of smoke became light, and the air quality improved to the point where there was no risk to the general public.
Environmental impact The tournament's environmental impact also drew significant criticism. Concerns were raised by climate activists about the environmental impact of expansion to 48 teams and the large distances between venues. A report by Scientists for Global Responsibility calculated that the tournament's greenhouse gas emissions would make it one of the most polluting events in the world, as it would be almost double the average for the last four tournaments. This was seen to contradict FIFA's sustainability goals.
An independent study by carbon accounting firm Greenly estimated the event's total carbon footprint as equivalent to 7.8 million metric tons of CO₂, more than double the official emissions reported for the 2022 World Cup in Qatar. While utilizing existing stadiums limited infrastructure emissions to just 3% of the total, the vast geographical distribution of matches across three North American countries and the expansion to 48 teams caused spectator and team transit to account for 87.8% of the tournament's overall carbon footprint. Critics also questioned FIFA's sustainability commitments, citing its sponsorship agreement with Saudi oil company Aramco. Additional scrutiny was directed at the United States' withdrawal from the Paris Agreement under the second Trump administration in 2026, which was seen as going against the environmental commitments linked with hosting and highlighting FIFA's lack of enforcement on climate standards.
Infrastructure, transit, and host-city logistics
Decentralized host committees in the United States Unlike previous World Cups, where there was a centralized organizing committee, each of the eleven U.S. host cities largely followed a decentralized American sports model, setting up its own host committee, with independent deals with FIFA. As a result, most of the financial and legal responsibilities shifted from the national level to the local level, including the majority of those for infrastructure improvements, public safety and security, and transportation.