FIFA recorded 6,810,966 spectators across 104 matches at the expanded 48-team tournament, an average of 65,490 per game. More than 60 million US viewers also watched Spain beat Argentina in the final across Fox and Telemundo. Those figures give Gianni Infantino a strong answer to World Cup criticism about the event’s popularity. They do not, however, resolve questions about visas, disciplinary decisions or FIFA’s political neutrality.
In an open letter published on Instagram on Monday, the FIFA president accused critics of overlooking a tournament that he said represented “happiness, unity, safety and togetherness”. He argued that journalists and commentators had been “consumed by hate and criticism” while FIFA delivered what he called “the best show in the world”.
The commercial and popular success is difficult to dispute. FIFA said total attendance exceeded the combined crowds at the 2018 and 2022 World Cups. Its revised budget for the 2023-26 cycle, which also included the expanded Club World Cup, projected revenue of $13 billion.
The more difficult question is whether strong audiences automatically answer criticism of how the competition was managed. Infantino’s letter mostly treated those two subjects as if they were the same thing. Convenient, certainly. Conclusive, not quite.
Did the World Cup really have no incidents?
Infantino made his broadest claim when discussing security.
“We experienced no violence, no incidents, 100% safety and security, only joy and happiness!” he wrote.
That description conflicts with events already under FIFA review. Argentine and Spanish players clashed on the field following Spain’s victory in the final in New Jersey, and FIFA opened a disciplinary investigation into Argentina’s conduct. That investigation remains unresolved.
Separate reporting from El País documented at least two deaths and 12 arrests in Argentina during gatherings surrounding the final. Those events did not necessarily occur within FIFA-controlled stadium security operations, an important distinction, but they still make an absolute claim of “no violence, no incidents” difficult to sustain.
Infantino did not address the post-final confrontation directly. Instead, he focused on the wider atmosphere experienced by millions of supporters and presented the tournament as evidence that football could bring countries together despite political conflict, domestic instability and public-health emergencies.
That case has substance. A tournament involving 48 national teams, three host countries and more than six million spectators was completed, and the final drew a vast television audience. But operational success and institutional accountability are not opposing concepts. A competition can be popular, largely safe and still produce decisions that deserve examination.
Why did visas become a major issue?
Travel restrictions were among the most persistent sources of tension. Infantino argued that critics concentrated on a small number of visa denials while ignoring the millions of approvals issued to visitors from around the world.
“You mentioned the few people denied visas and overlooked the millions who were approved,” he wrote. “Because football unites the world, and it was impressively demonstrated this summer.”
Iran’s experience was more complicated than that summary suggests. The team entered the United States and played its matches, but the war in the Middle East forced it to relocate its training base from Tucson, Arizona, to Tijuana, Mexico. The squad then faced additional travel demands moving between Mexico and the United States for its three group-stage fixtures.
Iran head coach Amir Ghalenoei described his side as “perhaps the most oppressed” team at the tournament. He cited denied visas affecting federation representatives, coaching staff and media personnel. Iran was eliminated in the group stage.
Somali referee Omar Abdulkadir Artan was also denied entry to the United States despite being selected by FIFA and holding a valid visa. US officials cited vetting concerns and alleged derogatory information.
Haiti’s domestic crisis and health concerns involving the Democratic Republic of the Congo added further scrutiny around travel and entry procedures. Infantino pointed to their participation as proof that football had crossed political and administrative barriers. That is fair context, but it does not erase the cases in which approved tournament personnel were excluded.
How did the Balogun decision deepen scrutiny?
FIFA also faced questions over its handling of United States striker Folarin Balogun’s red card against Bosnia and Herzegovina. The governing body suspended the automatic one-match ban after an intervention by US President Donald Trump.
Infantino did not name Balogun in his letter, but he defended the general category of decision involved.
“Potentially mistaken red or yellow cards or subsequent decisions not to ban players in certain situations are routine and widely accepted in some of the biggest leagues worldwide,” he wrote. “It’s curious that the same countries employing these practices are the ones criticising.”
That explanation addresses whether suspensions can be reviewed. It does not fully address concerns about political involvement in a competition ruling.
Norwegian Football Federation president Lise Klaveness said UEFA, Norway and other associations had expressed “serious concern” over FIFA’s reversal. Norway’s federation described the episode as serious intervention in competition rules and planned to take the matter to FIFA’s ethics system.
Officiating decisions during Argentina’s match against Egypt also prompted widespread debate among supporters and analysts. Refereeing disputes are indeed routine, and a single controversial call rarely proves systematic bias. The Balogun case was different because the concern extended beyond the original decision to the process used to change its consequences.
Where can political-neutrality complaints go?
Human rights group FairSquare separately filed a complaint with the International Olympic Committee, alleging that Infantino had repeatedly violated political-neutrality rules by supporting Trump. The IOC rejected the complaint because the matter fell outside the jurisdiction of its Ethics Commission.
That rejection did not rule on the substance of FairSquare’s allegations. It established only that the IOC’s ethics body was not the proper venue. With Norway considering a complaint through FIFA’s own mechanisms, scrutiny now shifts toward a system overseen by the organization at the centre of the dispute.
Infantino’s letter presents criticism as evidence that observers failed to appreciate the football. The record audience, huge attendance and generally successful staging support his argument that the tournament connected with the public. Spain’s title and the scale of the event will remain central to its sporting legacy.
But criticism of visa policy, disciplinary governance and political influence is not the same as hostility toward the competition itself. FIFA delivered a tournament watched by millions. It also made decisions that national associations, rights groups and reporters continue to question. Both statements can be true, even if an open letter has little room for that particular formation.
