For the ongoing 2026 FIFA World Cup tournament, host USA granted visas to the Iranian Football team and “necessary support staff”, but a number of officials, including the secretary-general of the federation, Hedayat Mombeini, and its vice president, Mehdi Mohammad Nabi, were reportedly denied entry visa. While the Trump administration stated that they would not allow Iran to ‘abuse the system to sneak terrorists into the US under false pretenses’, the Iranian Football Federation called these acts violation of international sports laws and labelled them as discriminatory treatment against Iran.

The Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), the governing body of football, has 211 members, more than the United Nations and any other international bodies. Sporting events like the football world cup are watched by billions of people around the world, generate billions of dollars in revenue, and have a significant impact on diplomacy and state affairs. As such, the implications of such refusals to grant visas in a global sporting event like the football world cup, need to be evaluated critically.

Firstly, a state has the exclusive authority to control the entry of foreigners into its territory. The right to control and restrict entry into territory is inherent to the notion of sovereignty. In fact, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights establishes the right to leave any country but return only to one’s own country (Article 13). Needless to say, issues related to visa, border control and security screenings during any global sporting event fall within the jurisdiction of the host nation, not the governing body of the sport.

This authority can only be limited due to human rights obligations, such as non-refoulment under the 1951 Refugee Convention and customary international law, under the Convention against Torture (Article 2(1)), or any other treaty obligations. As such, in the absence of specific human rights or treaty obligations, a state can in practice refuse to grant a visa to any person, even if that person is a government official. However, it can be argued that discrimination with regard to the issuance of visas falls within the scope of international human rights law. Notably, human rights treaties such as the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (article 2), and norms of customary international law prohibit discriminatory treatment, including on grounds of national origin. On the other hand, under international law, discrimination between non-citizens of different nationalities is permissible in the context of immigration. Moreover, in case the person in question is a refugee, victim of torture, etc., such discriminatory behaviour may not be permissible.

Secondly, the FIFA Statutes assure its commitment towards respect for internationally recognised human rights (article 3). Further, discrimination against a country, private person or group of people is strictly prohibited and will be punishable by suspension or expulsion (article 4). In regard to hosting any FIFA affiliated competition, the host country, as well as the host cities, enter into agreements with FIFA regarding hosting the said competition. These agreements are customised for every host city, detailing the financial, legal, and operational aspects of hosting. Even during entering into bidding process for the world cup, the candidates give assurance that they will welcome all member associations and visitors from around the world.

Although not all of these documents are public record, it can be assumed that host countries, through these agreements, provide assurances to FIFA to allow players, coaches, officials, fans, and media members of the participating countries into their territory. Guarantees of respect for human rights are also embedded in these agreements. For example, the FIFA World Cup 26 Human Rights Framework provides for addressing potential barriers to inclusion and prohibits any discrimination in relation to the tournament activities.

Over the decades, though there has been an emergence of transnational sports law, it is highly implausible that any of these rules has established itself as a rule of general international law. Thus, any contractual obligations that the US might be violating, through refusing an entry visa to Iranian Football Federation officials, may not override its sovereign right to regulate immigration, along with the concerns of national security. What about non-discrimination obligations? Even though Iran could claim a violation of customary norms of non-discrimination, such claims would perhaps not tenable due to the ongoing conflict between the two countries, even though some may correctly point out the USA’s own part in the hostilities. In any case, the hostilities provide the US with an upper hand in invoking national security to justify the refusal of entry visas (although it should be noted that controversies regarding visas in this World Cup extend beyond Iranians to other nationalities as well).

In my opinion, from a realist perspective, it is highly unlikely that hosting states would agree to compromise on matters of national security. Since the terrorist attack on the 1972 Munich Summer Olympics, attacks on different sporting events have also increased, with football matches and the football world cup being subject to regular threats. Nonetheless, how far the generic security risk can be invoked remains an open question. If host states cannot provide public, individualised evidence that a specific coach or official poses a direct threat, collective denial will perhaps be yet another way to politically and bureaucratically pathologise an entire nation.

The writer is Commonwealth Shared Scholar and works as lecturer (on study leave) at the School of Law, Chittagong Independent University.

বাংলাদেশ সময়: ১৫:৫৩:১২   ১৭ বার পঠিত