President Donald Trump wants FIFA President Gianni Infantino to become the next secretary-general of the United Nations, according to a report by the New York Post, a move that would elevate one of his closest international allies from global soccer to international diplomacy.

The report says Trump believes Infantino has earned worldwide respect through his leadership of FIFA and his role in organizing the 2026 FIFA World Cup across the United States, Canada and Mexico.

According to a source cited by the Post, Trump views the Swiss executive as someone with a unique ability to unite people across political and cultural divides.

The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment, and FIFA has not publicly addressed the report.

Trump and Infantino have built a close relationship over the past several years, particularly during preparations for the expanded 48-team World Cup.

Their partnership has been highly visible throughout the tournament, with Trump playing an unusually prominent role in FIFA events.

Infantino awarded Trump FIFA’s inaugural Peace Prize in December, while the U.S. president later presented the FIFA Club World Cup trophy at MetLife Stadium. On Sunday, Trump joined Infantino on the field again to hand Spain captain Rodri the World Cup trophy after Spain defeated Argentina 1-0 in the final.

During the championship match, Trump watched from a suite alongside First Lady Melania Trump and Infantino, with the World Cup trophy displayed nearby before the postmatch ceremony.

The next UN secretary-general will be selected later this year and will take office on Jan. 1, 2027, replacing Antonio Guterres, whose second term ends in December.

Any bid by Infantino would face significant political hurdles. Candidates must first secure the backing of all 15 members of the UN Security Council, where any of the five permanent members can veto a nomination, before receiving approval from the General Assembly.

It also remains unclear whether Infantino has any interest in pursuing the position.

According to the Post, Trump believes Infantino would be a stronger candidate than a field that could include former Chilean President Michelle Bachelet and International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Rafael Grossi of Argentina.

Grossi’s candidacy could reportedly face resistance from the United Kingdom because of longstanding tensions with Argentina over the Falkland Islands.

Trump’s special envoy for global partnerships, Paolo Zampolli, endorsed the idea, arguing that Infantino’s experience managing FIFA’s global membership makes him well suited for the UN’s top diplomatic role.

“At the United Nations, you have to deal with 193 member states. In FIFA, there are over 200 members. Gianni’s great record shows he knows how to manage,” Zampolli told the Post.

Zampolli, a former Dominican ambassador to the UN, has previously worked with FIFA on international initiatives. Earlier this year, he reportedly suggested replacing Iran with Italy at the World Cup in an effort to ease diplomatic tensions between the Trump administration and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni.

Despite his global profile, Infantino’s leadership has not been without controversy.

He recently faced criticism from several soccer organizations after FIFA overturned a red card shown to United States forward Folarin Balogun before the Americans’ Round of 16 match against Belgium. Trump later acknowledged that he personally contacted Infantino to request a review of the decision, which ultimately allowed Balogun to play.

Infantino is also approaching an important vote within FIFA. Delegates at the FIFA Congress are expected to decide in March 2027 whether he will receive a fourth term as president.

If he remains at FIFA, his attention will quickly shift to the 2027 Women’s World Cup in Brazil before preparations intensify for the centennial 2030 Men’s World Cup.

That tournament will make history by spanning six countries across three continents, with opening matches in Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay before the competition moves primarily to Spain, Portugal and Morocco.

Trump has repeatedly criticized the United Nations since returning to office, reducing U.S. funding to the organization and withdrawing the United States from the World Health Organization, UNESCO and the UN Human Rights Council.

The Daily Sabah Newsletter

Keep up to date with what’s happening in Turkey,
it’s region and the world.

SIGN ME UP

You can unsubscribe at any time. By signing up you are agreeing to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

The fallout from the 2026 FIFA World Cup has escalated into one of the biggest leadership challenges of Gianni Infantino’s presidency, with senior figures across European football accusing FIFA of putting commercial gain and political influence ahead of the long-term health of the sport.

Spain’s 1-0 extra-time victory over defending champion Argentina in the World Cup final at MetLife Stadium on July 19 brought the curtain down on the first 48-team tournament, co-hosted by the United States, Canada and Mexico.

While Infantino hailed the competition as “the greatest human, social and cultural event that mankind has witnessed,” the tournament has instead fueled growing criticism over fixture congestion, governance, commercialization and political interference.

Leading that criticism is La Liga president Javier Tebas, who on Tuesday said Infantino should step down, accusing FIFA of “destroying the football industry” by prioritizing an expanded international calendar over the domestic leagues that underpin the global game.

“The football industry isn’t just the World Cup,” Tebas told La Gazzetta dello Sport. “National competitions sustain this sport. They generate tens of thousands of jobs. They are destroying the football industry for an event that lasts 40 days and involves only a minority of players.”

Tebas renews attack on FIFA

Tebas has been one of Infantino’s fiercest critics for years, regularly opposing FIFA’s efforts to expand international competitions. His latest remarks come as FIFA continues to evaluate a proposal from South American governing body CONMEBOL to increase the 2030 World Cup from 48 to 64 teams.

According to Tebas, further expansion would only worsen an already overcrowded football calendar.

“Increasing the number of national teams makes no sense,” he said. “Everything cannot revolve around the World Cup.”

Asked whether Infantino should remain FIFA president, Tebas left little doubt.

“In my opinion, his time is up,” he said.

“He has the support of the system and the federations, so there’s not much more to add. There is no opposition candidate because nobody wants to stand just to lose. The system is rotten at its core.”

Tebas argued that many influential figures privately share his concerns but refuse to challenge FIFA publicly.

“I’ve heard many people who are against Infantino,” he said. “They say it, but then they do nothing. I don’t know what’s worse, the silence or the complicity.”

Over-commercialization

Among Tebas’ biggest complaints were several changes introduced during the World Cup that he believes prioritized television revenue and entertainment over the sport itself.

He dismissed the tournament’s hydration breaks as little more than commercial opportunities.

“Hydration breaks are a lie,” he said. “In La Liga we use them only when it’s genuinely hot. Here, the stadiums in Dallas, Los Angeles and Atlanta had air conditioning. They were simply advertising breaks.”

The breaks, introduced midway through each half to help players cope with summer temperatures across North America, drew criticism from some coaches and supporters who argued they disrupted the rhythm of matches while giving teams additional tactical timeouts.

Tebas also criticized the World Cup final’s extended halftime, which reportedly lasted about 27 minutes instead of the traditional 15, saying it unnecessarily disrupted the match and further highlighted FIFA’s emphasis on commercial programming.

Political interference

Tebas also pointed to the controversial handling of United States forward Folarin Balogun’s suspension as evidence of what he believes is growing political influence over football.

Balogun’s red-card suspension was lifted after intervention linked to U.S. President Donald Trump, who publicly acknowledged speaking with Infantino about the matter.

Although Belgium later eliminated the United States from the tournament, Tebas argued the incident exposed serious governance concerns.

“FIFA arranges things as it wants, for its own interests, certainly not for football,” he said.

The controversy echoed broader concerns voiced by former FIFA president Sepp Blatter, who has warned that political involvement risks undermining the credibility and independence of world football.

UEFA boycott exposes widening divide

Relations between FIFA and UEFA also appeared to reach a new low during the tournament.

UEFA president Aleksander Ceferin did not attend the World Cup final, marking the first time a UEFA president has skipped football’s biggest match.

Ceferin attended the tournament opener in Mexico City but stayed away from the final amid growing frustration over several issues, including the Balogun disciplinary case, refereeing operations, match management and what UEFA viewed as increasing political influence over FIFA decision-making.

His absence was widely interpreted as a public protest and underscored the widening divide between European football’s governing body and FIFA.

Supporters demand structural reform

Criticism has not been limited to football executives.

Football Supporters Europe (FSE), the UEFA-recognized umbrella organization representing supporters across Europe, issued a strongly worded statement calling for sweeping reforms to FIFA’s governance.

Describing the tournament as “a World Cup that failed supporters,” FSE said FIFA had prioritized spectacle and commercial interests over fans and the traditions of the game.

“The 2026 World Cup should have been a celebration of football and the supporters who give it life,” the organization said. “Instead, it became a case study in what is so deeply wrong with football today.”

The group criticized historically high ticket prices, soaring travel costs, limited transparency, changing regulations and what it described as the growing influence of political figures over football operations.

It also called for structural reforms that would return greater decision-making authority to FIFA’s Council and Congress while ensuring clubs, leagues, players and supporters play a larger role in shaping the sport’s future.

“The future of the game cannot rest in the hands of a man who has proven yet again that he puts financial and political interests ahead of football,” the statement said.

Infantino remains firmly backed

Despite mounting criticism, Infantino’s position appears secure.

More than 200 of FIFA’s 211 member associations are reported to support his bid for a fourth term when presidential elections are held in Morocco on March 18, 2027.

The FIFA president has consistently defended the tournament, arguing that disciplinary decisions were made independently under FIFA regulations while highlighting record attendance, global audiences, commercial success and unprecedented worldwide interest.

Infantino has also praised cooperation with the Trump administration on security and logistics throughout the tournament.

Critics, however, contend that the World Cup accelerated the commercialization of football through dynamic ticket pricing, extended broadcast windows and growing political involvement, while placing additional strain on players and domestic competitions.

With calls for reform now coming from league officials, supporters’ groups and former FIFA leaders, the debate surrounding the 2026 World Cup has evolved beyond a single tournament into a broader battle over who controls football’s future.

UEFA president Aleksander Ceferin skipped Sunday’s FIFA World Cup final in an apparent protest against FIFA, according to British media reports published Monday.

The move is the latest sign of growing tensions between European football’s governing body and FIFA, the global governing body of football.

One major source of friction was FIFA’s controversial decision to overturn the suspension of United States forward Folarin Balogun before the Americans’ World Cup match against Belgium.

Balogun had been sent off in the previous game, but FIFA reinstated him after U.S. President Donald Trump publicly urged FIFA president Gianni Infantino to “review” the red card.

UEFA was unhappy that Infantino bowed to what it viewed as political pressure from the tournament hosts. It called FIFA’s disciplinary committee decision “unprecedented, incomprehensible and unjustifiable” and said it “crossed a red line.”

Other sources of tension included FIFA’s acquiescence after U.S. authorities refused to allow Somali referee Omar Artan to enter the country. UEFA responded by appointing Artan to officiate the UEFA Super Cup next month.

FIFA was also unable to ensure Iran was treated the same as other teams playing in the United States. Coach Amir Ghalenoei said his team were the “most oppressed” at the World Cup. U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said he “danced a happy dance” when Iran were knocked out.

UEFA has also, so far, refused to adopt some of FIFA’s World Cup innovations, including hydration breaks, the “mistaken identity” VAR protocol that led to Breel Embolo’s sending-off in Switzerland’s quarter-final loss to Argentina, and yellow cards for players who cover their mouths while speaking to an opponent.

Ceferin also criticized the expanded 48-team tournament before it kicked off.

“We have a lot of matches that are completely uninteresting,” he was quoted as saying by a newspaper in his native Slovenia.

Ceferin has also been publicly critical of World Cup ticket prices.

UEFA has said it will continue to offer two “fan first” ticket categories at the 2028 European Championship in the United Kingdom and Ireland. It said 40% of tickets will either be priced below 30 pounds ($40) or below 60 pounds. It has also promised not to adopt dynamic pricing.

Ceferin attended the tournament’s opening match in Mexico City on June 11.

The Daily Sabah Newsletter

Keep up to date with what’s happening in Turkey,
it’s region and the world.

SIGN ME UP

You can unsubscribe at any time. By signing up you are agreeing to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Galatasaray’s hierarchy is reportedly divided over the future of defender Wilfried Singo as growing interest from Serie A giants Inter Milan and Napoli forces the Turkish champions to decide whether to maximize their investment or cash in this summer.

The 25-year-old Ivory Coast international has emerged as one of Galatasaray’s most valuable transfer assets after attracting attention from Italy, but club officials remain at odds over what would constitute an acceptable offer.

According to reports, one group within the board insists the club should not entertain any proposal below Singo’s 55-million-euro ($63 million) release clause, arguing that selling for less would undervalue a player they signed less than a year ago as a cornerstone of their long-term project.

Another faction favors a more pragmatic approach, believing a bid in the 35 million euros to 40 million euros range would represent good business.

Those executives point to Singo’s reported annual salary of about 5 million euros and the fact that he was not an automatic starter throughout the 2025-26 campaign.

They believe a lucrative sale would reduce the club’s wage bill while generating funds to strengthen other areas of the squad ahead of another domestic title defense and Champions League campaign.

Singo arrived from AS Monaco in August 2025 in a deal reportedly worth about 30.8 million euros, signing a contract through June 2030.

The agreement reportedly included a release clause that initially stood at 60 million euros before dropping to 55 million euros.

Standing 1.90 meters (6 feet 3 inches), Singo is capable of playing at both right back and center back, making him one of Galatasaray’s most versatile defenders. His athleticism, aerial ability and defensive flexibility convinced the club to make one of the biggest investments in its recent history.

During his first season in Istanbul, Singo made 29 appearances across all competitions, including 19 in the Süper Lig, scoring twice while alternating between the starting lineup and the bench. Although he was not a guaranteed starter, his performances were enough to maintain interest from several top European clubs.

The defender also enhanced his reputation with Ivory Coast, adding to his international experience during the 2026 FIFA World Cup despite dealing with a hamstring injury during the tournament.

Inter are believed to be monitoring Singo as they look to reinforce their defense following Denzel Dumfries’ reported move to Real Madrid, while Napoli have also identified the Ivorian as a potential summer target. Reports in Italy have suggested Inter could be prepared to offer around €30 million plus performance-related bonuses, though no formal agreement has been reached.

With four years remaining on his contract, Galatasaray are under no pressure to sell and hold a strong negotiating position. Club officials are expected to consider serious offers, but the size of the asking price remains the subject of internal debate.

The Daily Sabah Newsletter

Keep up to date with what’s happening in Turkey,
it’s region and the world.

SIGN ME UP

You can unsubscribe at any time. By signing up you are agreeing to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

The 2026 FIFA World Cup will be remembered as the biggest tournament football has ever staged. It shattered attendance records, expanded the field to 48 teams, generated unprecedented revenue and ended on Sunday with Spain reclaiming the title after Ferran Torres’ extra-time winner against Argentina in the final at MetLife Stadium.

Yet beneath the spectacle, the monthlong tournament exposed difficult questions about FIFA’s priorities, from commercialization and political influence to climate concerns, fan accessibility and player welfare.

Whether the tournament represented football’s future or a warning about its direction remains one of its defining debates.

Costly expansion

For the first time, 48 nations competed for the World Cup, increasing the tournament from 64 to 104 matches across the United States, Mexico and Canada.

The expansion undeniably opened doors. Nations from Africa, Asia and other underrepresented confederations enjoyed more qualification places, allowing countries such as Cabo Verde to make history with memorable knockout-stage runs.

New faces and fresh storylines added diversity to a competition long dominated by traditional powers.

But the expanded format also reignited concerns that had existed since FIFA approved the changes.

More matches meant a longer tournament, heavier workloads and increased travel across 16 host cities spread over three countries.

Critics argued that the additional group-stage games diluted the competition and stretched players close to their physical limits after already demanding club seasons.

UEFA President Aleksander Ceferin was among those who questioned the expansion, describing it as unnecessary and warning that quantity should not come at the expense of quality.

The tournament’s geography only intensified those concerns. Long-haul flights, multiple time zones and cross-border travel created logistical headaches for teams, supporters and organizers while significantly increasing the competition’s carbon footprint.

For example, Türkiye were forced to travel from their base in Arizona to Vancouver for a match against Australia before making the return journey immediately afterward.

Who benefited from the record revenues?

Financially, the tournament was an overwhelming success.

FIFA reportedly generated about $15 billion in revenue through broadcasting rights, sponsorships, hospitality and ticket sales, making it the most lucrative World Cup in history.

Yet much of that success became a source of criticism.

For the first time, FIFA embraced dynamic ticket pricing, allowing prices to rise according to demand. Final tickets reportedly climbed as high as $11,000 across primary and resale markets, effectively pricing many lifelong supporters out of football’s biggest match.

The soaring prices prompted investigations by several U.S. state attorneys general into potential price gouging and drew criticism from players, including U.S. midfielder Timothy Weah.

Despite record overall attendance of roughly 6.8 million spectators, some lower-profile matches featured noticeable empty seats, highlighting the gap between strong headline figures and affordability for ordinary fans.

FIFA defended the pricing strategy as a reflection of market demand and a necessary component of maximizing revenue in North America’s sports marketplace.

For many supporters, however, the tournament increasingly resembled a premium entertainment product rather than the global celebration that has traditionally defined the World Cup.

Overly politicized

Few World Cups have blurred the line between sport and politics as visibly as the 2026 edition.

The most controversial incident centered on U.S. forward Folarin Balogun, whose suspension following a red card against Bosnia and Herzegovina was reportedly overturned after lobbying from President Donald Trump.

The decision drew criticism from UEFA officials and fueled accusations that political pressure had compromised FIFA’s judicial independence.

The debate intensified during the final trophy presentation.

Trump remained on the podium alongside FIFA President Gianni Infantino as Spain captain Rodri lifted the trophy, breaking with longstanding World Cup protocol. The moment drew loud boos from sections of the crowd and sparked widespread criticism that football’s biggest celebration had become politically charged.

Officiating also remained under scrutiny throughout the tournament.

VAR decisions, including the disallowed Spanish goal in the final after a foul was called on Mikel Merino, fueled familiar arguments over consistency, transparency and whether technology has improved football or merely shifted controversy from referees to video review.

Immigration issues challenged football’s global identity

The World Cup prides itself on bringing the world together, but immigration and visa restrictions complicated that vision.

Somali referee Omar Artan, the Confederation of African Football’s 2025 Referee of the Year, was denied entry into the United States despite holding a valid visa, citing security vetting concerns.

Iran also faced significant logistical obstacles, establishing its tournament base in Tijuana, Mexico and traveling into the United States for group-stage matches because of diplomatic and visa complications.

Supporters from countries including Haiti, Senegal, Ivory Coast and Iran also reported visa delays, travel restrictions and rejected applications.

Those incidents raised broader questions about whether football’s premier global event can truly remain inclusive when geopolitical realities limit participation for players, officials and supporters alike.

Commercial spectacle

The World Cup final embraced an unmistakably American flavor.

A Super Bowl-style halftime show featuring international music stars including Shakira, Madonna and BTS transformed football’s biggest match into a major entertainment event.

Supporters praised the production value and global appeal.

Traditionalists argued that extending halftime well beyond football’s customary break represented another example of the sport bending to commercial interests.

Even mandatory cooling breaks during extreme heat became advertising opportunities, with commercial content filling the stoppages.

To critics, the tournament increasingly reflected entertainment business priorities as much as football itself.

Heat and climate concerns

Environmental concerns followed the tournament from kickoff to the final whistle.

The combination of 16 host cities, three countries and thousands of cross-border flights made the tournament one of the most carbon-intensive sporting events ever staged.

Extreme summer temperatures also became a recurring issue.

More than one-quarter of the matches were reportedly played in potentially dangerous heat, forcing mandatory hydration breaks and raising fresh concerns about player safety.

Wildfire smoke drifting from Canada periodically affected air quality, disrupting training sessions and creating additional health concerns ahead of the final.

Although FIFA promoted sustainability initiatives throughout the tournament, critics argued that the scale of the competition fundamentally conflicted with global climate goals.

Did host cities truly benefit?

Supporters pointed to billions in projected economic activity, increased tourism and job creation across North America.

Hotels, restaurants, transportation providers and local businesses experienced significant boosts during the tournament.

But the financial picture was more complicated.

Host cities also absorbed enormous security, infrastructure and operational costs, prompting questions about whether taxpayers ultimately received sufficient long-term value.

Critics argued that FIFA captured a disproportionate share of the tournament’s profits while local governments assumed much of the financial risk.

The debate echoed questions raised after previous mega sporting events: Who really wins when the final whistle blows?

The deduction?

There is little doubt that the 2026 World Cup succeeded as a sporting spectacle.

Spain’s triumph, underdog breakthroughs, record crowds and unprecedented global attention ensured its place among the most memorable tournaments in football history.

Yet it also became a defining test of where the sport is headed.

The expanded format widened access but increased physical and environmental demands. Record revenues came alongside soaring ticket prices. Entertainment reached new heights while commercial interests became more visible than ever. Politics, immigration policies and climate challenges repeatedly intersected with the game itself.

Perhaps that is the tournament’s true legacy.

The 2026 World Cup may be remembered more for FIFA’s bold embrace of American sports traditions – from hydration breaks and halftime shows to championship rings – than for which team claimed the trophy.

From mandatory “hydration” breaks that effectively split matches into four quarters to championship ​rings, a halftime show and an ever more tightly packaged entertainment product, FIFA embraced elements of the U.S. sporting model with enthusiasm.

Some of those innovations will probably be remembered as novelties of an American-hosted tournament – while others may prove harder ⁠to dislodge. The mid-half breaks, brought in throughout the competition regardless of whether ⁠conditions strictly required them, were introduced by FIFA on player-welfare grounds in a tournament played through the heat and humidity of a North American summer.

Once established, they also created something football has traditionally resisted: two scheduled interruptions in the middle of each half. For coaches, they became tactical timeouts.

For broadcasters, they ​offered natural windows that could one day carry enormous commercial value. But for supporters accustomed to football’s continuous rhythm, they ​made ⁠matches feel increasingly divided into four quarters.

That is where the legacy question becomes more pertinent. The breaks are likely to be discussed for future World Cups, not least because player welfare offers FIFA an obvious rationale for retaining them and because the commercial potential of fixed mid-half pauses will be difficult for the sport’s decision-makers to ignore.

Yet any attempt to normalize them globally would meet resistance, particularly in Europe, where football’s relative freedom from stoppages remains one of the characteristics supporters most fiercely defend. UEFA has said it will not bend its rule that hydration breaks cannot exceed one minute.

The tournament therefore became a test case for how far FIFA is willing to reshape football in the image of the market in which it is being played. The answer is: quite far.

Blurred lines

The winning team, Spain, received championship rings, a tradition imported directly from North American sport, while the showpiece final itself featured a major halftime entertainment production that has drawn obvious comparisons with the Super Bowl and led to a 27-minute interval, shooting past the sacrosanct 15-minute halftime period.

Neither changes the absolute fundamentals of the game. But they contributed to a sense that FIFA was no longer merely bringing the World Cup to the ⁠United ⁠States but increasingly adapting the World Cup to American sporting culture. There was an irony in that. Across the tournament, American cities experienced much of what has always made international football distinct: vast traveling support, flags filling city centers, supporters singing for hours before and after matches and national teams carrying a sense of identity that no franchise model can easily reproduce.

The United States appeared to be absorbing the culture of football. At the same time, FIFA seemed intent on absorbing the culture of American sports entertainment and projecting it to fans worldwide. The tournament was also unavoidably political, with FIFA President Gianni Infantino’s close relationship with U.S. President Donald Trump becoming one of its defining off-field themes. To critics, Infantino’s proximity to Trump often went beyond the diplomatic courtesies normally expected between the head of a global sports body and the leader of a host nation. The controversy surrounding Folarin Balogun’s disciplinary case brought those concerns into especially sharp focus after Trump publicly praised FIFA’s handling of the ⁠matter following his own intervention. FIFA said its judicial bodies acted independently and autonomously, but the episode reinforced an impression among some that the line between football governance and political influence had become uncomfortably blurred.

Referring debates

The tournament’s inevitable refereeing controversies added another layer of unease. Officials were asked to enforce a game operating under new rules and interpretations while also managing familiar pressures over consistency, player protection and the ​growing influence of technology.

The result was a World Cup in which debate often moved beyond whether one decision was right or wrong and toward something more fundamental: whether the laws ​of the game had become too complicated for players, coaches and supporters to understand in real-time. New interpretations were meant to bring greater clarity and consistency, but the tournament frequently demonstrated how difficult both can be to achieve.

VAR remained central to major decisions, but technology did little to eliminate argument. On ⁠some occasions, it merely shifted ‌the argument from ‌the referee’s judgment to the interpretation of slow-motion images and technical language. That was compounded by a wider atmosphere of ⁠suspicion around officiating, with conspiracy theories amplified on social media and referees often unable to answer back.

FIFA ‌refereeing chief Pierluigi Collina dismissed allegations of bias and said match officials operated with complete independence. On the pitch, the expanded 48-team format produced a mixed verdict. There was more football, more countries and more opportunities for ​nations previously not included in the sport’s biggest event.

The ⁠expanded knockout phase gave the group stage additional jeopardy, but the sheer scale of 104 matches made this World Cup feel ⁠less like a concentrated festival and more like a vast sporting season squeezed into a matter of weeks.

That size suited FIFA’s commercial ambitions and the geography of the hosts ⁠, but whether it improved the sporting product ​is more debatable. The tournament still delivered what World Cups always do: new heroes, fallen favorites, national heartbreak and moments that cut through the noise surrounding the event. Its most lasting legacy, however, may not be a match or a champion, but the precedent it has created. The real test of that will come in 2030.

The Daily Sabah Newsletter

Keep up to date with what’s happening in Turkey,
it’s region and the world.

SIGN ME UP

You can unsubscribe at any time. By signing up you are agreeing to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.