As anticipation builds for the 2026 FIFA World Cup, set to be hosted across the United States, Canada, and Mexico, world football’s governing body finds itself at the center of a whirlwind of planning, negotiations, and political commentary. With 48 teams, 16 host cities, and a staggering 104 fixtures, the tournament promises to be the largest and most logistically complex in FIFA’s history. But as the finishing touches are put on preparations, a host of challenges—ranging from scheduling headaches to political interventions—have come to the fore.
FIFA vice-president Victor Montagliani made it clear during the recent Leaders sports summit at Twickenham stadium that when it comes to the World Cup, the buck stops with FIFA, not politicians. Responding to U.S. President Donald Trump’s suggestion that matches could be moved away from certain cities for political or safety reasons, Montagliani was unequivocal: “At the end of the day, it’s FIFA’s tournament. FIFA makes those decisions. Even in the early days of deciding on venues, it was our decision based on the standards, not politics. If matches are moved between cities, it is ultimately FIFA’s jurisdiction – no one else’s.”
This assertion comes as organizers grapple with an array of thorny issues, not least of which is the daunting task of creating a match schedule that satisfies players, fans, and broadcasters alike. The expanded format, with 48 teams and 104 matches, means more games than ever before, and the vast expanse of North America’s time zones only adds to the complexity. European broadcasters, especially those catering to fans in England and beyond, are lobbying hard for prime-time kick-off slots. But as Montagliani admitted, compromise is inevitable.
“We’re in conversations daily with media partners,” he explained. “Will every game be perfect from a TV perspective? Probably not. But stadium conditions, weather and fan welfare all have to be factored in. It’s not just about television.”
The issue of scheduling is not just about pleasing TV audiences. The North American summer brings with it searing heat and humidity, conditions that have previously caused problems at both the 1994 World Cup and this year’s expanded Club World Cup, which was also staged in the U.S. Players and coaches alike voiced concerns during the Club World Cup about the state of the pitches and the difficulties of traveling between remote and major city stadiums—concerns that FIFA insists are being addressed for 2026.
Montagliani downplayed direct comparisons between the two tournaments, saying, “Comparing the Club World Cup with the World Cup is apples and oranges. The Club World Cup was put together quickly, without the kind of city agreements and transport guarantees required for the World Cup. For 2026, public transport and infrastructure plans are much more robust.”
But the lessons from this summer’s Club World Cup are not lost on FIFA. The organization has promised to heed the advice of global players’ union FIFPro and is working to ensure that only stadiums in less humid locations—such as Seattle or Vancouver—or the five venues with roofs will host the afternoon kick-offs most attractive to European broadcasters. Yet, with only seven of the 16 host cities meeting these criteria, it will be impossible to schedule every European team’s game at optimal times. As a result, many matches will be pushed into evening slots, meaning kick-offs in the small hours of the morning for European fans.
Montagliani, who played a pivotal role in helping Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. win the bid for the 2026 tournament, acknowledged the challenge: “We’re in those conversations daily, our media guys with European and other world media in terms of what’s best, what are the stadiums that you can play at 3pm (Eastern Time), like Atlanta, for instance. So, that’s all in the mix now (and) once the schedule does come out after the draw, we’re going to do our best to ensure that all that’s taken into consideration. Now, will there be every game that will be absolutely perfect from a kick-off time from a TV perspective? I don’t know because there’s a lot of games.”
Beyond scheduling, the sheer scale of the 2026 World Cup has prompted some to propose an even more ambitious expansion, with suggestions of increasing the field to 64 teams and stretching the tournament to eight weeks and 128 matches. But Montagliani was quick to pour cold water on such talk, at least for now. “We haven’t even kicked off 48 yet,” he said. “Talk of 64 teams means 128 matches and possibly an eight-week tournament. That would raise big questions about player fatigue, scheduling and kick-off clashes. We need to study the impact, not just the desire for more games.”
The Club World Cup, too, could see some tweaks in the future. Montagliani left the door open for a review of the format, including the number of teams and how many clubs from each country qualify. However, he stressed that any changes must be based on merit, not simply historical precedent: “It’s worth reviewing the format. Perhaps the number of teams, or how many clubs from each country qualify. But it has to be based on merit, not history.”
Another issue swirling around the world of football is the future of Israel’s participation in international competitions. With organizations like Amnesty International calling for Israel’s suspension, Montagliani emphasized that the matter is currently in the hands of UEFA, not FIFA. “Israel is a UEFA member and it’s their process to deal with,” he said. “Of course there’s communication between FIFA and UEFA, but our fiduciary duty is to our members. Until a concrete decision is put before FIFA Council, it remains with UEFA.”
Despite the many hurdles, Montagliani remains confident that the 2026 World Cup will be a success. He points to the robust planning already underway, the commitment to fan and player welfare, and FIFA’s ultimate authority over all tournament decisions. “It’s about making sure venues, transport and schedules work for fans, players and broadcasters,” he said. “There are challenges, yes, but the planning is already there. And let’s be clear decisions about this World Cup will be made by FIFA, not by politicians.”
As the world counts down to the biggest World Cup yet, all eyes will be on FIFA to see if it can deliver a tournament that lives up to the hype—and meets the needs of a truly global audience. With so much at stake and so many moving parts, the road to 2026 promises to be as dramatic as the action on the pitch.
