Beyond the Lines | Two to tango: Geopolitics and the United Nations of Football

When Folarin Balogun’s red card was reversed in the 2026 FIFA World Cup, courtesy of a phone call from Donald Trump to Gianni Infantino, the FIFA chief, cynics with a valid reason declared it as the end of innocence in a tournament featuring the world’s elite talent. Controversies surrounding the entry of players and match officials of some African and Asian teams into the US only confirmed the worst fears. Was the World Cup, thus, in danger of losing its sheen to global power politics?

Given that the FIFA World Cup has grown to have a bigger body of members than that of the United Nations, it was understandable that the World Cup had replaced the organisation as the stage for a collective expression of ongoing tensions in the world order, sometimes even giving rise to unfounded theories about the tournament being rigged.

More from Opinion

Given the close connection between politics and popular sport, the game of football has traditionally served to reveal gory truths of power, even before globalisation was a popular currency. Trump isn’t the first disruptor and wouldn’t be the last either, but the sport and its tumultuous relationship with geopolitics will continue to exasperate and animate our senses. History helps us with context.

A Violent Past

In 1978, the World Cup was hosted by Argentina, which at that time was being ruled by General Jorge Videla, a dictator who was responsible for the disappearance and killing of thousands. An article in a Harvard University magazine mentions that when the World Cup matches were played, the clamour from the stadium could be heard by prisoners in the prison situated next to it. Despite the noise, Argentina, led by a gifted team, progressed through the initial phase of the contest. Then came the big controversy. In the next stage, they needed to beat Chile by more than 3 goals to progress further. But it was a tough ask since Chile had not conceded many goals in the tournament until then.

As the world media descended in Buenos Aires, criticism against Videla’s human rights record gathered into a hurricane. Videla needed to salvage his reputation and deflect attention towards football. Peru was a perfect candidate to begin Videla’s turnaround. The night before the match, there was a surprise visitor at the Peruvian dressing room. General Videla had decided to stop by to meet the Peruvian team: his visit signalled a message for the Peruvian team for the next day. According to The Sunday Times, the Argentine government shipped 35,000 tons of grain to Peru and the Central Bank of Argentina released US$50 million in frozen Peruvian assets. Besides, several Peruvian dissidents were also released from Argentine prisons.

It was a shocking outcome. Argentina demolished Peru 6-0, knocking Brazil out and subsequently beat the Netherlands in the final to win its maiden Cup. The impact was instant. Football made ordinary people in Argentina forget their woes and celebrate the victory. However, the regime had reignited national passions through a glorious win and in five years, the Videla government was overthrown.

The dramatic tango of football and geopolitics had etched memories of both a shameful, engineered match and those of a dazzling Argentina team full of world class players led by Mario Kempes. Waiting to enter this team was a 17-year-old who would go on to become the world’s greatest footballer in the years to come: Diego Maradona. In his machinations, Videla was merely borrowing a page from the Benito Mussolini book.

What was the Mussolini Playbook?

When the World Cup debuted amidst the World War in 1934, Benito Mussolini, Italy’s fascist leader, used the football tournament for propaganda. The matches were marred by referees handpicked by Mussolini, questionable calls and general bitterness. 4 days after Italy emerged as world champions, Mussolini went to meet Adolf Hitler. Fascism was soon unleashed upon the world alongside Hitler’s conquests.

By 1938, the World Cup’s second edition mirrored the state of global politics. Before the tournament, Germany annexed Austria, setting off alarms among nations. More importantly, the Germans now included the fancied Austrians in their team, making it the strong Nazi team Hitler desired. Only 15 nations participated. Italy and Mussolini won again. With two World Cups behind them, fascism and football went hand in hand. Soon, Axis forces would annex Europe, plunging the world into a world war.

It was in the emergence of a new world order that the game found its ambassadors from Brazil in the 1950s and 60s. Besides being a geopolitical tool during the World Cups, there are instances of the game being dragged into wars. Honduras and El Salvador fought an intense 100-hour soccer war in 1969. Following longstanding tussles over migration and land occupation, the two nations went into qualifying matches in tensions that swiftly moved from the football pitch towards the battlefield.

Dictators began to use the game as political propaganda. When Congo played in  1974, the country's ruthless dictator, Mobutu Sese Seko, promised players houses and money. When they lost to Yugoslavia 9-0, he threatened them with death upon return if they lost their final match to Brazil by 4 goals. Somehow, the team managed to keep the loss to 3-0. Yet, they were humiliated in return though their lives was spared.

The 1982 edition was played in the shadow of the Falklands War involving Argentina and England. The two nations were kept in different groups and did not face each other. Eventually, when they would face off four years later in Mexico, Diego Maradona’s Argentina would floor England in a bitterly contested match. The Falklands acrimony between the two was so acute that FIFA changed its rules for the game forever. To keep away controversies, referees from England and Argentina do not officiate each other's matches. In fact, in 2026, English referees Anthony Taylor and Michael Oliver were not appointed for Argentina’s quarter final match. A mouthwatering clash between the two nations awaits us again.

Lest the sport be thought of as one to trigger combative passions, football also has a history of brokering peace. In December 1914, along the Western Front during World War I, British and German soldiers dropped arms and paused hostilities to gather on No Man’s Land and play football against each other using improvised rubber balls. The world however would go on to fight a deadly war, and those matches were forgotten.

 Globalisation, India and Football

The game’s connection with India’s freedom movement goes back to 1911 when Mohun Bagan’s barefoot footballers outplayed the British East Yorkshire Regiment to win the IFA Shield, upending the might of the English. There aren’t such moments in other sports linked to India’s freedom movement. In fact, India’s history with football was shaped by colonisers: no, not the British. 35 kilometres north of Kolkata, the French established a colony on the banks of the Hooghly River in 1673, which became a trading post. Called Chandernagore, it became a permanent French settlement in 1688 and continued even after India’s independence.

The French decided to leave the choice of identity to the people of Chandernagore (later Chandannagar). In August 1952, the people of the town voted to be a part of India. French continued to be a part of culture and in schools. When Les Bleus won the World Cup in 2018, French flags, music and celebrations swept through the city. In 2026, with France’s Mbappe on the rampage, the world cup lit up the streets of Chandannagar.

The striking feature of this tournament is that it best explains globalisation. 289 players in the 2026 World Cup were born in a country they don’t represent, making it one migrant among four players. More than 40 players were born in France but play for other teams while the French team has a mix of players born elsewhere. Lamine Yamal’s father is Moroccan while his mother is from Equatorial Guinea. Though he opted to play for Spain (his country of birth), Yamal hasn’t abandoned his ancestral roots: the flags of Morocco and Equatorial Guinea adorn his footballing boots. Migration has blurred lines of identity, and with clubs scouting talent from across the globe, football is the only sport to acquire a truly globalised status.

Globalisation has taken the game to different shores, closing the gap between countries. In a match in 1986, Hungary trounced El Salvador 10-1. Today, such a result is unthinkable. Cabo Verde, a nation with 1.58 lakh citizens did not lose a match in full-time in this World Cup, going toe-to-toe with giants Spain and Argentina (they lost to the latter in extra time). Some of the countries may not be military powers or economic engines, but they have invested in becoming a footballing force. In that, the game has become a symbol of recognition, prestige and sporting progress.

The Dark Side of the Game

Besides geopolitics, dark forces including drug mafias and warlords have sometimes tainted the show. The story of young Andres Escobar is heartbreaking. Escobar was a Colombian defender with a promising career in Europe. In a World Cup match he conceded an own goal and Columbia was eliminated. After the loss he wrote a column titled ‘Life Doesn’t End There.’ Pablo Escobar and his deadly drug cartels in Medellin were a threat. Andres was advised against returning home. Yet, Andres returned home. Few days later, in a parking lot outside a nightclub an assassin from Escobar’s gang who had lost money on the World Cup pumped six bullets into Escobar. Andres Escobar was dead while the World Cup was still underway hundreds of miles away in the United States. Three decades after the shocking incident the game returned to the US.

By the end of this edition, America might leave its mark on matches with hydration breaks and commercials. Trump might eventually realise that Balogun, the American player whose suspension he helped revoke, was born to a pregnant Nigerian mother visiting America. By the time the World Cup ends, it will be a moment of triumph for the winning team as much as for Trump. Equally importantly though, it will be remembered for a game that mirrors geopolitics and globalisation.

(The writer is the author of ‘General Brasstacks: The Sundarji Story’, ‘Watershed 1967: India’s Forgotten Victory over China’ and ‘Camouflaged: Forgotten Stories From Battlefields’. His column for Firstpost — ‘Beyond the Lines’ — covers military history, strategic issues, international affairs and policy-business challenges. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views. Tweets @iProbal)