FIFA's Double Standards? Why USA Keeps World Cup While Russia Remains Banned

The situation surrounding the staging of the World Cup in the United States has exposed what critics describe as the true mechanisms behind FIFA's decision-making process, where the slogan "sport outside politics” appears to be applied selectively.

Photo: commons.wikimedia.org by Steindy (обсуждение) 17:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC), https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Russian football team

FIFA Standards Do Not Apply Against US

FIFA did not strip the United States of its right to host the World Cup, which began today, despite the country's actions against Iran. The federation reportedly based its decision on its principal doctrine — "sport outside politics.” FIFA President Gianni Infantino has repeatedly stated that football should unite people in a world divided by conflicts and that sporting events should not be used as a tool for politically punishing states.

However, had the special military operation begun in February 2018, Russia would, according to this view, have been guaranteed to lose its hosting rights for the tournament because of what was described as "aggression” against Ukraine.

This is precisely how the special military operation is interpreted in the West, while U.S. actions in Iran are viewed as America's sovereign right to self-defense. Supporters of this argument point to the suspension of the Russian national team from FIFA qualifying tournaments in 2022 and the official position of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

At the same time, FIFA justified its departure from its core principle by arguing that 12 European national teams officially refused to play against Russia in 2022, which would have caused "irreparable and chaotic damage” to the organization of competitions.

In the autumn of 2023, when UEFA attempted to return Russian under-17 teams to competition, the same 12 countries openly and officially opposed the decision — England, Poland, Sweden, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Norway, Ireland, Finland, Romania, as well as Ukraine.

Either Follow the Rules or Abandon the Principle

Why, then, did FIFA and UEFA not take a firm stance and impose sanctions on those countries for violating the organizations' statutes concerning the depoliticization of football?

According to critics, the answer is simple: the principle can be set aside when sponsor revenues carry greater weight. They argue that this represents a classic example of double standards and legal hypocrisy in international sport.

In this interpretation, the proclaimed slogan "sport outside politics” is, in practice, entirely subordinate to commercial interests and political circumstances, while FIFA's leadership follows the broader direction of Western policy.

FIFA regulations, critics contend, are written in such a way that officials always retain room for interpretation. Concepts such as "protecting the integrity of competitions” or "force majeure” allow administrators, in one case (the United States), to overlook geopolitical developments, while in another (Russia), to impose strict sanctions justified by security concerns.

A possible transfer of the Russian national team to the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) has also been discussed as a route back to World Cup competition. However, Asia offers no guarantees of participation in qualification tournaments.

National team head coach Valery Karpin has noted that, without FIFA approval, a move to the AFC would have little practical value. The team could potentially participate in the Asian Cup, but the path to future World Cups would likely remain blocked.

Prospects for Russia's Return to International Football

The prospects for the Russian national team's return to FIFA and UEFA competitions remain unfavorable, as Western governments are unlikely to recognize the results of the special military operation for a considerable period.

However, historical precedent involving recognition of the Soviet Union demonstrates, according to supporters of this argument, that economic interests eventually outweigh appeals to a "rules-based international order.”

The United States officially recognized the USSR in 1933, effectively disregarding earlier ideological positions, while several European countries had done so even earlier. Recognition of Soviet territories occurred on the basis of actual control.

There is also an intermediate scenario similar to the Western approach toward the incorporation of the Baltic states into the Soviet Union in 1940. Washington officially declared that it would "never recognize” them as Soviet territory, yet this did not prevent sporting contacts and competitions from taking place. In practice, existing borders were accepted by default.

For FIFA and UEFA, the key factor, according to their stated position, would be a formal cessation of hostilities through a peace treaty or a freeze agreement rather than international recognition of Russia's new territories by the United Nations.

Sports administrators could initially rely on previously tested mechanisms. They could permit the Russian national team to compete again while requiring matches to be played at neutral venues. Meanwhile, the issue of the territorial affiliation of clubs from newly incorporated regions could remain unresolved, much as questions surrounding the sporting status of teams on the Korean Peninsula or in Cyprus have persisted for decades.

According to this viewpoint, Western institutions are capable of maintaining official positions of non-recognition in international forums while simultaneously allowing FIFA to resume matches involving Russia when commercial interests make such a decision advantageous.

The process, supporters of this argument believe, will begin to move forward once other international federations governing team sports start readmitting Russian teams to major competitions.