FIFA rules vs. US law: What happens when they conflict during the World Cup?

In most cases, those systems operate in parallel without significant conflict. When they conflict, legal and operational questions can become complex.

What FIFA Actually Requires of Host Countries

Hosting a World Cup involves both logistical planning and legal obligations. Before a country’s bid is accepted, FIFA requires governments to sign a set of formal guarantees covering taxation, immigration, intellectual property, and operational control.

FIFA’s 2026 bidding process documentation outlines a key requirement: a full tax exemption for FIFA, its subsidiaries, and related entities during the preparation and tournament period. That exemption covers income taxes, customs duties, and sales taxes on ticket revenue.

In the United States, that last requirement played out at the state level. Missouri, Georgia, and Florida each passed legislation exempting World Cup ticket sales from state and local sales taxes, a condition FIFA set as part of the host city selection process. According to an analysis by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, Georgia stands to lose up to $25 million in state and local sales tax revenue from games played in Atlanta, while Florida projects losses of around $7.4 million from Miami matches. Missouri’s estimate runs roughly $1.9 million per game, with six matches scheduled at Kansas City’s Arrowhead Stadium.

Those exemptions were introduced through new legislation to meet FIFA’s requirements. State legislatures created new laws to meet FIFA’s terms.

The Contract Question: Who Has Authority Over What?

Host city agreements for the 2026 World Cup are private contracts negotiated directly between FIFA and local governments, and they shift significant authority toward FIFA. A legal analysis published in the International Sports Law Journal comparing the 2026 FIFA Host City Agreement with the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics contract found that the FIFA agreement operates in part as a one-way option agreement, with unilateral modification rights reserved for FIFA and extensive obligations assigned to host cities.

That structure drew attention in early 2025, when President Trump stated that matches could be moved away from cities he described as unsafe, including Seattle and San Francisco. As a legal matter, that scenario raised a key limitation: The President does not have unilateral authority to alter private contracts between FIFA and local governments. These agreements are binding under contract law and are not subject to unilateral executive action. A city that attempted to exit its agreement without cause could face breach of contract claims.

FIFA’s own 2026 regulations do give the organization broad authority to cancel, reschedule, or relocate matches at its sole discretion, including for health, safety, or security reasons. But that authority belongs to FIFA, not to any individual host government or federal official.

Immigration: Where FIFA’s Requirements Meet US Law Most Directly

FIFA’s bidding guidelines require host governments to establish a nondiscriminatory visa environment for players, officials, media, and fans. The 2026 bid documentation specifically calls for a visa-free environment or facilitated visa procedures applied without discrimination by nationality.

That requirement conflicted with a series of U.S. travel-related executive orders signed in 2025. An executive order signed June 5, 2025, fully restricted entry for nationals of 12 countries and partially restricted entry for seven more. While athletes and coaches traveling for the World Cup received an exemption, fans and support staff from those countries did not, according to a Human Rights Watch letter to FIFA sent in July 2025. A further 36 countries were under consideration for addition to the list.

Amnesty International’s June 2025 report on the tournament noted that FIFA’s stated bidding requirements included a commitment from hosts to ensure the tournament would not involve adverse impacts on internationally recognized human rights, with specific attention to freedom of expression, gender equality, and protection from discrimination.

Similar tensions have been documented in previous tournaments. At the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, fans displaying political banners and rainbow flags were removed from stadiums or had items confiscated, contradicting FIFA’s stated commitments to free expression. Iranian fans displaying protest slogans were removed from matches. FIFA’s stated human rights policies have, in documented cases, conflicted with the laws and practices of host countries.

Tax Conflicts and Commercial Exclusivity: A Pattern Across Tournaments

FIFA’s tax exemption requirements for host countries have been documented across multiple tournaments over several decades. For the 2014 World Cup in Brazil, the federal government passed what analysts called a “World Cup Law Pack,” granting FIFA, its partners, and authorized sponsors broad tax exemptions unavailable to other businesses. A review of those laws noted that local companies not involved in the tournament continued to pay taxes while FIFA-designated entities did not, raising documented antitrust concerns.

Qatar implemented similar exemptions for the 2022 tournament, covering income taxes, excise duties, and customs for all entities involved in staging the event. South Africa and Russia made comparable legal adjustments for their respective tournaments.

In each case, governments enacted legal adjustments or exemptions to meet FIFA’s contractual requirements.

The Broader Pattern

The 2026 World Cup is the first co-hosted by three countries with distinct legal systems, making the tension between FIFA’s requirements and domestic law more visible than in previous tournaments. The core dynamic is not new: When a private governing body hosts a global event, host countries often adjust legal frameworks to meet contractual obligations.

This story was produced by Mokaram Injury Lawyers and reviewed and distributed by Stacker.