Comments
GELFAND’S WORLD - We have been discussing the 2026 World Cup for basically three reasons:
1) It is a legitimate discussion regarding athletic accomplishments and failures.
2) It’s been a study – in microcosm – of how Los Angeles will handle the much more challenging task of hosting the Olympics in 2028. This includes the issue of political interference by the Republican administration (whether or not Donald Trump is still in charge) and whether he will still be interested in hassling Los Angeles.
3) The World Cup has been a lesson in positive things that came about due to the hosting of hundreds of thousands of people from other countries, many of whom were introduced to the American idea of salad dressing and our other cultural contributions for the first time. Some were also introduced to the idea not of fast food, but of fast eating. There may be a useful idea to come out of this in regard to cultural homogenization. That is, we Americans can learn to deal with Parisians on their own turf, but they can also learn to deal with us on ours.
Let’s begin with a brief consideration of interference in our affairs by the current administration.
An aside: This discussion depends on whether the City of Los Angeles will continue to be the official host of the next Olympic games. That question depends on several related sub-questions, including whether we want badly enough to be released from the contract, whether we find that we can’t really afford the costs, and whether the legalities either allow us to escape or somehow be released. There is also a question – newly raised – about the proposal to allow Russia to compete once again, despite their continuing butchery in Ukraine. We might consider the possibility that a sufficiently unified concern raised by Los Angeles would allow for a reappraisal and rewriting of the agreement to something closer to what we had in 1984. We ought to be inviting our best legal minds to take a close look at what has been agreed to, what is yet to be agreed to, and where flexibility exists.
As to the Trump administration and what to expect, the lesson from the World Cup is mixed. Over the preceding months, Donald Trump has made Los Angeles, Minneapolis, and basically every blue state a target of his animosity. This isn’t something we have to debate. The position has been adopted plainly and stated openly by Trump himself. At the moment, he is withholding disaster aid from blue states, while red state aid has been approved at a high rate. Early in the World Cup preparations, there were veiled threats and a few not-so-veiled threats that ICE would visit World Cup games. There was federal interference with the migration of players, referees and players’ relatives. One referee was dropped from the FIFA roster for these games.
But when the games began, hundreds of thousands of spectators filled American, Mexican, and Canadian stadiums, and all of the national governments were welcoming, with the exception of the U.S. treatment of the Iranian team and those other slights mentioned above. Millions of tickets were sold and people showed up.
It’s also true that there was a backdrop of typical Trumpian behavior during this whole period, with the hostilities towards Iran being the foremost. But – it would appear – the world has learned to discount the threats and the weirdness. (An example as of this writing: Trump’s latest is that the U.S. will control the Strait of Hormuz and charge our own toll on shipments going through. In any other administration, this would be seen as an act of war and a major act of piracy, but it didn’t even top the pages on internet news sites on Monday morning. It’s already been discounted by foreign countries and the mass media.)
A little about the teams and games themselves.
Any of you remember that comment from the previous column (borrowed from the late Jim Murray) that the ribbon clerks are now out of the game? That’s clearly the case. Here is who is left:
France
Spain
England
Argentina
Recognize anything here? Soccer fans aren’t surprised. These teams have won a combined total of 7 out of the 22 World Cups. Every single team has won the World Cup at least once, with Argentina (3) and France 2) leading the pack. France, Spain, and Argentina have each won the championship at least once since 2010.
So here is the next round: England plays Argentina. France plays Spain.
Now that’s a lot of history. We can dispense with England v. Argentina quickly: They fought the Falklands War just a few decades ago.
Now France v. Spain. They were both part of the Roman Empire (any former student of Latin has read Caesar’s account of his conquest) and lived and fought side by side over the centuries including a conflict – something called the Franco-Spanish War -- in the 1600s.
There are a couple of permutations of semifinal victories that would lead to equally interesting matchups.
The most interesting for those who like Shakespeare and movies would be France v. England. Here’s a couple of countries that fought something called the Hundred Years’ War, had Joan of Arc in common (one as a leader and saint, the other as an opponent and victim of execution). There are two remarkable film versions of Shakespeare’s Henry V. They would return to combat on a field of battle covered with grass in New Jersey, but it would still be a battle in so many ways.
Of course, a Spain v. England matchup would be an interesting replay of the conflict that resulted in the failure of the Spanish Armada, just to mention one tidbit.
I only bring up these few historic issues because we are going to see a lot of national flags waved by fans from all these countries, and it is curious to think of them on fighting ships of previous centuries. The discussion is actually relevant because of the snotty way that the U.S. government treated the Iranian soccer team these past few weeks. It is also of interest because all these once-warring countries are now fighting it out in a friendly sort of sports rivalry. I’m not buying into the idea that sports is a pacifying force when it comes to international animosities (witness the 1936 Olympics, among others) but the World Cup at least brings competing fans into close proximity in a place of relative peace.
Argentina has to be left out of this particular discussion, but it does have a place in modern soccer lore.
Argentina is, after all, the defending champions of the Word Cup. They present to the world their own soccer hero in Lionel Messi. They have been struggling a bit to get to the semi’s, but they are here. They had to score 3 goals in 13 minutes at the end of the next to last game just to get to where they are – but they did.
If I had to guess, I would pick France as the most likely to win it all. They have a strong defense, and they have two of the best scorers on the planet. On the other hand, Spain has a strong record in European soccer and might pull off an upset.
As to England, they have managed to claw their way into these 2026 semifinals having last won their only World Cup title back in 1966. That’s a half century absent glory. It is something akin to the Chicago Cubs going into the 2016 World Series. I mean they have a chance, but it’s limited. Still, they got here, and they had to get past Norway and Mexico in the process. (I don’t actually know how to rate these victories.)
Overall, Spain probably had the toughest time getting to the semifinals, considering that it had to defeat Portugal and then Belgium. Getting to the semifinals in the World Cup is something like getting to the World Series in American baseball. You have to get past two rounds of play facing teams that are themselves champions of their divisions.
And then there is Messi, who could carry Argentina to the title in concert with an obviously able and talented team.
And now a comment about how the United States sponsors have handled the tournament.
The first thing to remember is that this has been the whole North American continent – Canada, the United States, and Mexico -- as co-hosts. If there has been any friction among the three countries, they have kept it quietly to themselves. In face of a presidency that has insulted and bullied both Canada and Mexico, the threats and bluster have been held down. When it came time to play, the U.S. Secretary of State was a spectator.
Curiously, the one time that Trump intruded himself into World Cup affairs, it did not involve the treatment of the undocumented or the behavior of ICE. It was simply a point of soccer. It perhaps said something about Trump’s lack of any sense of sportsmanship (everybody knew that already – consider his way of playing golf) but it was not a threat against the overall right to play a sports tournament within our boundaries.
What does the World Cup 2026 say about our ability to host the 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles?
First, they suggest that there is at least a chance that this liberal Democratic city in this red state will be allowed to carry out its business without the D.C. gestapo inserting itself.
From a financial and management perspective, I don’t think we have any real data. The two tournaments are just way too different at every level, ranging from management to finance to transportation. Still, we are reminded that the North American hosts have managed to deal with the famously corrupt management of FIFA, so perhaps the Los Angeles City Council will start to do a better job in dealing with the IOC.
Meanwhile, the 2026 World Cup presents an international level of griping over missed calls, political interference, and national rivalries that could have originated in Brooklyn or Chicago. “We wuz robbed!” is not just a North American phenomenon. At least the United States has not fought a war over a sports rivalry.
(Bob Gelfand writes on science, culture, and politics for CityWatch. He can be reached at [email protected])
