FIFA: Safety, security of World Cup host cities is government call

FIFA has made it clear that the responsibility for safety and security in the 2026 World Cup host cities resides with the national and local governments. The remarks follow tensions sparked by U.S. President Donald Trump’s suggestions that he might push to relocate matches if he deems certain cities unsafe.

Here are the main elements and implications:

What happened

• President Trump made public comments implying that World Cup matches in Boston (Foxborough, Massachusetts) might be moved unless the city “cleans up its act,” referencing recent incidents of violence in South Boston.
• He also suggested that safety concerns could lead to reassignment of matches in other U.S. cities if conditions were unsatisfactory.

FIFA’s position

• A statement from FIFA emphasised that safety and security at all its events are top priorities.
• FIFA said it is governments’ duty to decide what is in the best interest of public safety. In development: national and local authorities are expected to meet safety‐and‐security requirements.
• FIFA expects all 16 host cities of the 2026 tournament to be ready and to fulfil necessary requirements.

Legal / contractual context

• Many host city agreements are locked into contracts, making sudden changes difficult. Boston’s mayor, Michelle Wu, pointed this out, saying that “much of it is locked down by contract so that no single person … can undo it.”
• FIFA and its vice presidents have noted that decisions over host venues are governed by agreement terms and FIFA regulations. Any potential change would involve logistical, legal, and contract challenges.

Political backdrop and concerns

• Trump’s comments are taking place in a broader domestic political context, including concerns over crime and public safety, particularly in cities governed by political opponents.
• Cities and mayors being targeted have pushed back, arguing not only contractually but also that safety is already being addressed.

Implications

• Even though governments are “responsible,” that doesn’t necessarily mean they can unilaterally force FIFA to move matches — contract terms, legal obligations, and FIFA’s own assessment processes (e.g. venue safety audits, risk assessments) all play roles.
• Pressure from political leaders could raise costs (security, policing, etc.), require extra resources, or lead to scrutiny of law enforcement effectiveness in host cities.
• The statement from FIFA seeks to clarify that while governments have the authority/responsibility over safety, FIFA expects compliance with its standards, but won’t necessarily act on every political threat of venue changes.