The 2026 FIFA World Cup will undoubtedly be remembered as one of the biggest and most dramatic tournaments in football history. With 48 nations competing across 104 matches in the United States, Canada and Mexico, the tournament produced everything a World Cup promises: extraordinary football, surprise results, passionate supporters and inevitable controversy.
At the centre of it all: Spain. Having won the Euro’s in 2024, Spain entered the tournament as one of the overwhelming favourites. The Spaniards defeated previous champions Argentina 1-0 after extra time in New York to claim their second World Cup title since their first victory in 2010. Their exciting young generation, led by players from the likes of Lamine Yamal, Pedri and Nico Williams, combined with the experience of established stars created a side with unstoppable momentum. Ranked among the world’s best and already European champions, Spain were expected by many to go far in the competition. Ultimately, they delivered.
Ranked among the world’s best and already European champions, Spain were expected by many to go far in the competition.
This historic moment meant everything to Spanish fans. I spoke with Noelia Fernandez Perez about what this moment meant for her as a Spaniard. Noe said, “It was one of the best days of [her] life”, especially after “Argentina was set to win it; it was amazing to see the atmosphere the whole night and the following days after”.
Despite the wealthiest countries making it to the final rounds, like every World Cup, one of the greatest successes of the tournament was the way it gave smaller nations a chance to make their mark on football. While the expanded 48 team format was questioned before the competition, minority countries such as Cape Verde produced performances that shocked the world on their debut World Cup, when they drew against the eventual champions, Spain. To add, it was also Curacao’s, Jordans and Uzbekistan’s first World Cup, meanwhile Haiti and DR Congo returned to the tournament since 1974. These stories made a strong case: the World Cup can genuinely become an international, global event for smaller countries rather than a competition dominated solely by traditional football powers.
The World Cup can genuinely become an international, global event about smaller countries rather than a competition solely dominated by the traditional football powers.
Ultimately, the traditional giants withheld their territory in the tournament, with Spain, Argentina, England and France standing aside from the crowd. Established stars such as Spain’s Rodri, France’s Mbappe, Norway’s Haaland, England’s Kane and Argentina’s Messi provided the quality expected from the world’s biggest football competition.
Spain, who ultimately defeated the previous champions, Argentina, remained the standout team throughout. Their controlled, technical standard of football remained a constant in each of their games, leading to their 1-0 victory in the final, with Ferran Torres scoring the winning goal in the 106th minute. Such standout performances were deservedly rewarded, with Rodri being awarded the Golden Ball, Unai Simon the Golden Glove after seven clean sheets, and Pau Cubarsi the tournament’s best young player at just 19 years old.
The host nations, of USA, Mexico and Canada also created a unique and vibrant atmosphere during the tournament. From packed stadiums to fan parks and pubs, football brought communities together from all over the world. The huge stadiums, such as AT&T Stadium in Dallas, originally designed for American football, provided an unfamiliar but spectacular setting for the world’s biggest football tournament. A defining atmosphere of the competition was at the historic Azteca Stadium in Mexico City, which is considered one of football’s most iconic venues.
A defining atmosphere within the competition was the historic Azteca Stadium in Mexico City, demonstrating why it is considered one of football’s most iconic venues.
It was Thomas Tuchel’s England squad that were among those who experienced that atmosphere first-hand. Their victory over Mexico was particularly memorable because it represented their first World Cup victory at the Azteca. Real Madrid’s Jude Bellingham scored twice in the first half before Harry Kane added a penalty, allowing England to survive a dramatic comeback, winning 3-2 in the 16th round.
Mexico City was a great example of the gruelling high temperatures, humidity and high altitude that players had to face. FIFA attempted to deal with the heat by using climate-controlled stadiums in some locations. Venues in cities such as Atlanta, Dallas and Houston offered players protection from extreme temperatures with air-conditioned stadiums. However, hydration breaks were still introduced in every match, regardless of the weather. FIFA said the three-minute breaks were designed around player welfare, with an interruption in play around the 22nd minute of each half.
Not everyone was convinced. It was the argument of many fans, players and commentators that such ‘hydration breaks’ were really used for commercial opportunities. The sight of advertising and commercial content during these breaks contributed to the perception that FIFA was prioritising profit making over allowing the traditional flow of football. The breaks were widely criticised, with fans booing during them. England’s manager Thomas Tuchel highly condemned the breaks saying, “it is hard to keep the momentum” and takes away the “characteristics of the beautiful game”.
That criticism became even more relevant when considering the price of attending the tournament. The overall cost of attending games became a major issue. Dynamic pricing meant prices could rise with demand, and some tickets for major matches reached thousands of dollars. For many supporters, particularly those travelling internationally, accommodation, transport and food added another enormous expense.
For many supporters, particularly those travelling internationally, accommodation, transport and food added another enormous expense.
This created a contradiction at the heart of the tournament. The World Cup was supposedly meant to bring people together, but could many ordinary fans actually afford to be there?
Despite the many successes that the World Cup brought, the tournament was far from free of controversy.
The political disputes were difficult to ignore. Perhaps the biggest controversy involved USA forward Folarin Balogun. After being sent off against Bosnia and Herzegovina in the 64th minute, Balogun was initially expected to serve a one-match suspension. However, FIFA later suspended the ban under the rarely used Article 27 of its disciplinary regulations, allowing him to play against Belgium. This decision came after Donald Trump reportedly contacted FIFA president Gianni Infantino. Nevertheless, FIFA insisted that they acted independently, but the decision raised serious questions about political influence and whether the same decision would have been made for another country.
Premier League refereeing chief Howard Webb later warned that the decision could damage trust in football officials, particularly because of the lack of transparency surrounding the incident.
Iran also found itself caught in the host-nation politics. Iran’s experience raised questions about whether the United States was the right place to host the tournament. While the Iranian players were ultimately able to participate, around 15 members of their football federation were denied US visas, disrupting preparations. The Iranian team instead based itself in Mexico, despite playing its group matches in the United States. For a tournament that is supposed to bring countries together, this served as an uncomfortable reminder that international football cannot always be separated from international politics. This made many feel opposed to and uncomfortable with the USA hosting the World Cup before it had even begun.
The scale, infrastructure, stadiums and financial power of the United States undoubtedly helped create an enormous global spectacle.
The scale, infrastructure, stadiums and financial power of the United States undoubtedly helped create an enormous global spectacle. Mexico added history and passion, while Canada strengthened the tournament's truly North American identity. But the tournament also exposed the problems that come when football meets extreme commercialisation and politics.
Ultimately, Spain provided the perfect footballing conclusion. They entered as a favourite because of their European Championship success and left as world champions. Their triumph represented the sporting purity of the World Cup: talented players, national pride, tactical brilliance and one decisive moment.
Yet the 2026 tournament also demonstrated that the World Cup is no longer just about what happens on the pitch. It is about money, politics, accessibility, technology, and global influence.
For all its flaws, however, the 2026 World Cup still achieved the one thing football has always been capable of doing: bringing people together. From the streets of Mexico City to stadiums across North America, fans shared celebrations, heartbreak and unforgettable moments. Spain may have lifted the trophy, but the World Cup once again belonged to football fans everywhere — even if FIFA now faces difficult questions about whether it can continue to keep the game at the heart of its biggest tournament.