Post-World Cup reflections

Global sporting competitions like the 2026 FIFA World Cup provide the United States (who hosted the event along with Canada and Mexico) with the chance to structure a narrative about itself — a narrative about how the nation would like to be seen by others. For sportswriter Andrew Holleran, even before the final between Spain and Argentina had concluded the tournament, the U.S. had seized the opportunity on the biggest of all international soccer stages and polished its reputation: “It’s official: Europeans have changed their opinion of America during the 2026 FIFA Men's World Cup.”

Following months of political tensions between Europe and the United States (e.g., tariffs, the U.S.’s Greenland claims, the future of NATO, the war with Iran), Europeans seemed to have turned sour on America prior to the tournament. Besides the U.S.’s foreign policies, domestic developments in the United States were also met with dismay. Drastic political measures, such as the nationwide ICE operations that fueled mass deportations and culminated in the tragic deaths of American citizens and immigrants, raised questions about shared democratic values.

And then there was the FIFA World Cup itself. The hyper-commercialization of the tournament, exemplified by the dynamic pricing model, was set to make the 2026 edition the most expensive tournament in World Cup history. This, again, put fans’ love of the sport to a severe test while seeming to confirm stereotypes about American capitalism. President Trump’s close relationship with FIFA leadership was likewise hardly beneficial to the U.S.’s public image. In fact, his fraternization with the organization’s president, Gianni Infantino, and the subsequent first FIFA Peace Prize awarded to Trump sparked debates in Europe about boycotting the tournament altogether.

In particular, 19 politicians within the European Parliament had asked Europe’s governing body for soccer, UEFA, to consider a boycott as a response. (Public surveys conducted in Germany showed, depending on the poll, support between 25 and 50 percent for such measures.)

And then there were those international fans who wanted to cheer on their country on-site but were barred from doing so due to the United States’ wide-reaching travel ban. As the tournament got underway, Somali referee Omar Artan was also prohibited from entering the country, and travel restrictions were imposed on the Iranian national team

These decisions inevitably sharpened questions about America’s openness and hospitality. Yet as the World Cup continued, according to Holleran, America had managed to shift critical European perceptions. “Prior to the World Cup, many Europeans had a tense view of the United States, from everything they see on social media and watch on TV. But many of them have learned that their views couldn’t be further from the truth.”

And he was not alone with this assessment. Comstock’s Magazine, e.g., believed to have witnessed a “foreign love for America” that the World Cup managed to bring to the fore. “America was asked to host the biggest of parties, and we nailed it, with tearful visitors bidding us farewell, thanking us for a glorious time and vowing to come back again for our U.S. hospitality.” Countless international social media accounts supported these positive assessments. International soccer fans posted and streamed from all over the country, showing aspects of and appreciation for American everyday life that the international community otherwise did not get to see: from a German’s amazement at the gas station Buc-ee's and a Japanese traveler’s reports about the perks of American restaurants to a French fan marveling over the enormous size of a jar of pasta sauce at Walmart and an Australian tourist’s reports about the warm reception of international visitors. A curious idea of America flooded the social media feeds.

So, is the old truism that soccer (here, in the shape of the World Cup) can bridge ideological gaps and bring together people and cultures more than just a cliché? Has our crumbling national image abroad really recovered?

The answer is likely, as Germans would put it, JEIN – yes and no. With the ever-growing impact of social media, the way in which national perceptions are shaped has changed. In its coverage of the tournament, Forbes Magazinerecently boiled it down to this: “For most of the modern era, influence moved through a broadcast model: institution to audience, brand to consumer, government to citizen. Build the message, control the channel, push it out. That world still exists, but it is no longer the most consequential one.”

Through the men’s FIFA World Cup, two primary types of U.S. national images have been sent outward into the world that stand in dialectic relation to one another: that of the organizers and the host’s political representatives (FIFA/the United States) and that of the unregulated, agenda-free international soccer fan. Now an America built around ordinary cultural phenomena and simple intercultural exchanges exists side-by-side with the political America. With the ability to stream anything from anywhere, the control over a nation’s public perception is no longer solely in the hands of the powerful. The result is a dual image of our nation: a politically fraught arena marked by intercontinental tensions and domestic controversy on the one hand, and a fascinating cultural space for international encounters and shared experiences on the other.