This World Cup was like that bad boy you date because of his looks and not much else. The stadiums were gorgeous, on-field dramas were aplenty and off the pitch were things like the Messi-Yamal photos taken when the former bathed the latter who had only just been born. Late, meaningful goals were scored every other day.
Spectacular, yes, but many will not call it an overwhelming success and exemplary in terms of organisation. The 2026 World Cup has concluded with many political and sporting controversies, a few of them ethical.
From the point of view of someone who follows football more than the average person but probably less than the zealots who know players’ birthdays and details of every athletic journey including those of the ones they hate, here are my takes on key aspects of the tournament:
A World Cup of heartbreaks
Lionel Messi’s tears didn’t even tell half the story. Netherlands were seconds away from advancing to the knock-out stage, but their dreams were shattered in an instant. Iran’s hearts were broken twice, first when they thought a last-minute goal against Egypt would send them through, only for the goal to be disallowed by VAR controversially, and then when a 99 % chance of being one of the best third-place teams that would qualify evaporated in one of the last kicks of the group stage.
With a one-goal lead, England were holding out against Argentina until minutes away from the final whistle, and, in another game, Egypt were leading Argentina by two goals with just about five minutes or so to go. Even today, Senegal players must still be wondering how they managed to lose to Belgium. Five minutes from full-time in that match, car horns blared in the western African country and firecrackers filled the night because the team were leading by two goals. Victory was near, but then Belgium scored three.
Politics played an unprecedented role
We all know that sports and politics should not mix, but it’s humans we’re talking about here. The phrase should be rewritten to say that sports provide the best channels for geopolitical snubs. And where this World Cup was concerned, politics interfered with wild abandon.
You can blame America and Fifa, but it takes two to tango. Social media ensured that America and Fifa suffered one blow after another before the World Cup, with Iran, Palestine, immigration crackdowns and high ticket prices making the tournament one of the most controversial sporting events ever, with boycott calls reaching unprecedented pitches at times.
The “Viking power” proved football is Norway’s new soft power
Beyond the tactical brilliance of Martin Ødegaard and the goalscoring machine that is Erling Haaland, Norway’s historic run to the quarter-finals projected something far bigger: cultural influence. After a 28-year tournament drought, Travelling Norwegian fans transformed host cities into seas of red, blue, and Viking horns, chanting in unison and capturing global headlines. Watching an entire stadium erupt into a Viking Thunderclap—led by global superstars on the pitch—turned traditional Nordic culture into a viral global brand. It showed that on football’s grandest stage, success doesn't just build sporting prestige; it exports national identity.
Lisa fulfilled Thailand’s World Cup dream (sort of)
Decades of heavy defeats in qualifying rounds meant that Thais had long given up on seeing their flag at the World Cup. Leave it to Lisa to change that. By featuring on FIFA’s official track, the pop icon gave local football fans a bit of cheeky vindication: Thais finally made it. It became an affectionate, self-deprecating meme across the country. Yet, technicalities aside, watching one of Thailand's own on the global stage provided an undeniable surge of national pride.
The “football gap” is getting narrower and narrower
The phenomenon unfolded before our very eyes. Japan took Brazil to the limits. African countries were there to win and not just as decoration as had been the case in the previous tournaments. But for some controversial decisions, Egypt almost beat Argentina. There are many other examples. And there were no longer “money-in-the-bank” games.
Cape Verde is the story of this World Cup
Officially known as Cabo Verde, this archipelago in the central Atlantic Ocean off the coast of West Africa, has a population of roughly 550,000. To put that in perspective, eight Rajamangala Stadiums can comfortably house the entire population of Cape Verde. If we talk about average American stadiums, it could be six or even fewer.
The country that many didn’t know even existed drew with Spain, the champions of this World Cup, during the group stage. Argentina, the first runner-up, could not beat them in 90 minutes in the knock-out phase.
“Hydration breaks” and the final’s half-time show kill football as we know it
This does not mean the idea is totally bad. It means that everybody who has grown up believing that football is a game of two halves, not four, and the half-time break of any match, no matter how big, is 15 minutes, saw that these fundamental rules changed on football’s biggest stage.
The “Hydration breaks” allow coaches to readjust tactics or strategies during each half and let physically “weaker” players rebuild or reinforce their stamina. These can affect the outcome immensely. The same goes for the American-style half-time show, allowing players to rest for 30 minutes instead of 15.
The organisers say the “Hydration breaks” were imposed with players’ wellbeing in mind, since the temperatures were hotter than many were used to. However, many African and Asian players must have laughed at the “hot temperatures” claim, though they kept their mouths shut because the measure would obviously benefit them.
One easy way out of this controversy was to define the temperatures that would require a break. This kind of measure was not taken, meaning everyone got the breaks at every game even if they were tired due to other factors, not the weather. Had the World Cup been held in Europe, the temperature would have been the same or higher this year, and no one would get that break!
As for the half-time show at the final, it was purely American, and commercially driven. The team with weaker strength benefited from this inexplicable part of the event. If you were a 39-year-old footballer like Messi, of course you would appreciate this long pause. If you were younger, playing on the opposing team and hoping to have a go at Messi in the second half, you couldn’t be totally happy.
The subtle difference between helping one man and rallying behind one man was glaring
In most cases, the terms are interchangeable. Not in this World Cup.
Portugal played for Cristiano Ronaldo, but obviously too much. Better options were sacrificed if the other players could pass the ball to him. The rest is history.
Argentina rallied behind Messi. They wanted to win him the trophy and played the best possible way to achieve that. Argentina went farther than Portugal because the Argentinian players thought that when fighting for Messi, sometimes you didn’t have to pass it to him.
Tears, joy, controversies, gloating and bitterness are part of football. This World Cup probably has produced more of these things, and many of them were linked directly to the hosts. The next World Cup will take place four years from now, so the popular phrase in football that “you are as good as your last game” will be applicable for everyone involved, the hosts, the players, the coaches, the referees, and the fans for quite a while.
