World Cup Preparations Highlight Press Freedom and Human Rights Risks

Last updated: 9 October 2026

FIFA World Cup Trophy is displayed at Lumen Field in Seattle, Washington, US, July 28, 2024. © 2024 Alika Jenner/FIFA via Getty Images

On June 11, 2025, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) published a report focused on the press freedom and human rights concerns surrounding the 2026 Men’s World Cup, which will be co-hosted by the United States, Mexico, and Canada. Released exactly one year before the tournament’s opening match, the article says RSF and its partners in the Sport & Rights Alliance issued a joint statement urging FIFA to ensure that human rights commitments made by the host countries — including protections for the right to information — are fully respected during the event.

The report presents the coming tournament not only as a major sporting event, but also as a large-scale test of how host countries will treat journalists covering a highly visible international competition. It argues that the 2026 edition, described as the biggest World Cup in history, will place reporters in environments where safety, access, and freedom to work may be challenged in different ways depending on the country. In that sense, the article broadens the discussion beyond football logistics and stadium readiness, framing the tournament as a media freedom issue as well as a sporting one.

A central concern in the article is the situation in Mexico, which it describes as one of the most dangerous countries in the world for journalists. According to the report, news professionals there face threats, harassment, and physical violence from both organized crime and state officials. The article says that since January 1, 2025, four journalists had been killed, and it links those killings to a broader climate of fear created by persistent impunity. In this portrayal, the problem is not only the violence itself, but also the lack of accountability that allows attacks to continue and encourages what the report calls “zones of silence,” where information of public interest goes unreported.

That point is particularly significant in the context of a World Cup because major sporting events tend to attract not only sports journalists, but also reporters covering security, public spending, corruption, labor conditions, public protests, and the social impact of hosting. If local journalists already operate in an atmosphere of intimidation, the risks may extend well beyond match reporting. The article suggests that the tournament could place additional pressure on media workers who are expected to document crowd management, local conditions, and any controversies surrounding the event, while doing so in settings where violence against the press has not been adequately addressed.

The report also raises a different set of concerns about the United States. Rather than centering primarily on killings or direct physical attacks, it points to restrictions that could obstruct reporting through administrative or political means. The article says press freedom in the United States has suffered a significant setback in recent years and that these challenges have intensified since Donald Trump returned to power. It warns that journalists — especially foreign journalists — could face intrusive checks, surveillance of their social media accounts, or even denial of entry based on their perceived political views. According to the report, such measures could directly compromise their ability to report on the tournament freely.

This distinction between risks in Mexico and the United States is one of the most notable features of the article. In Mexico, the emphasis is on physical danger, impunity, and violence. In the United States, the focus is on border controls, surveillance, and barriers that may prevent journalists from entering the country or working without interference. Although the threats differ in form, the article treats them as part of the same larger problem: a World Cup environment in which journalists may not be able to do their jobs safely and independently unless special protections are put in place.

The report frames these risks as especially urgent because the World Cup is likely to involve large crowds, a heavy security presence, and potentially politically charged public demonstrations. Under such conditions, journalists covering events on the ground may be exposed not only to ordinary reporting challenges, but also to confusion in crowd-control situations, arbitrary restrictions, and possible detention. The article stresses that media workers must be able to operate without hindrance and should not be subjected to violence, intimidation, or arbitrary limitations while carrying out their professional duties.

A major part of the argument is directed at FIFA and local authorities. The joint statement described in the report calls on them to adopt exceptional measures to protect media professionals during the tournament. This includes not only ensuring the physical safety of journalists in potentially volatile public spaces, but also making sure foreign reporters can enter host countries without unjustified interference. The article suggests that responsibility for press freedom during the World Cup should not rest solely with journalists or media organizations themselves. Instead, event organizers and host governments are portrayed as having a direct obligation to create conditions in which reporting can take place freely and safely.

The article also places strong emphasis on the conduct of law enforcement agencies. It says security forces should strengthen their protocols so they can clearly distinguish journalists from protesters, spectators, and bystanders. This is an important operational point because major public events often create chaotic environments where reporters working in crowds can be mistaken for participants rather than observers. The report argues that police and security authorities should communicate their rules transparently and apply them in ways that respect journalists’ independence and freedom. In practical terms, that means clear procedures, visible safeguards, and accountability for misconduct if journalists are detained, obstructed, or harmed while covering the tournament.

Another important theme running through the report is the connection between human rights commitments and the right to information. The article does not present media freedom as a secondary concern that can be handled after infrastructure, sponsorship, and event security are settled. Instead, it treats press freedom as an essential part of the host countries’ broader human rights obligations. This framing matters because it places journalists’ ability to gather and publish information alongside other protections that large international sporting events are increasingly expected to uphold, such as labor rights, non-discrimination, and public accountability.

The timing of the report also gives it additional weight. By publishing the statement exactly one year before kick-off, the organizations behind it appear to be signaling that these issues cannot be left until the last stages of preparation. The article suggests that effective protection for journalists requires advance planning rather than reactive crisis management once the tournament has already begun. Questions such as who will be granted entry, how police will handle media in demonstrations or crowd surges, and what protections will exist for reporters facing threats need to be addressed early if the host countries want to avoid scandals or abuses during the event itself.

Although the article focuses mainly on Mexico and the United States, its broader implication is that the scale of the World Cup magnifies existing press freedom problems rather than suspending them. A tournament of this size does not take place in a neutral environment. It unfolds inside countries with pre-existing legal, political, and security conditions that shape how journalists are treated. The report therefore suggests that international attention should not be limited to stadium construction, fan logistics, or sporting performance. It should also include the local press climate, the treatment of foreign correspondents, and the readiness of institutions to protect the flow of information.

The article is also notable for what it implies about the modern relationship between sports and rights. Large tournaments are no longer viewed purely as entertainment spectacles. They are increasingly seen as global events that expose the strengths and weaknesses of host states in areas such as labor protections, policing, migration policy, and media freedom. In this case, the report argues that a football competition of unprecedented scale may become a revealing test of whether democratic and rights-based commitments extend to the press when authorities come under pressure from security concerns, political sensitivities, or reputational risk.

Another significant point is that the concerns raised are not hypothetical in a general sense. The article points to concrete patterns already visible in the host environment: killings of journalists and entrenched impunity in Mexico, and heightened checks, surveillance concerns, and potential entry denials in the United States. By relying on existing conditions rather than abstract warnings, the report builds the case that the risks facing World Cup journalists are foreseeable. That makes the call for preventive measures more forceful, because it suggests organizers have enough information now to act before the tournament begins.

The report’s focus on foreign journalists is also important. International tournaments depend heavily on reporters traveling across borders to cover matches, training camps, host city conditions, and fan activity. If foreign journalists face politicized screening, invasive review of personal communications, or uncertainty over whether they will be admitted at all, the result could be uneven or distorted coverage. The article suggests that freedom to enter and report is not just a logistical matter of visas and accreditation, but part of the broader principle that journalists should not be filtered according to their perceived opinions or past reporting.

At the same time, the report implies that local journalists may face a different burden. International media often arrive for the duration of a tournament and then leave, but local reporters remain in the same political and security conditions before, during, and after the event. For that reason, failures to protect the press during the World Cup may have longer consequences for domestic media environments, especially in places where violence or intimidation are already present. This makes the issue not only about temporary tournament coverage, but also about whether the event strengthens or weakens the wider conditions for independent journalism in host countries.

Taken together, the report presents the 2026 World Cup as a moment when sport, security, and information rights will intersect in unusually visible ways. Its argument is that journalists should not be treated as peripheral actors or inconvenient observers during a global event of this scale. They are central to public understanding of what the tournament means, how it is managed, and what broader realities surround it. When journalists face violence, surveillance, arbitrary restrictions, or entry barriers, the damage extends beyond individual reporters to the quality of public information available to millions of people following the event worldwide.

Conclusion

The article presents the 2026 World Cup as more than a major football tournament. It argues that the event is also becoming a test of whether host countries and organizers are prepared to protect journalists’ safety, independence, and right to report without violence, surveillance, or arbitrary restrictions.

More broadly, the report draws attention to a wider issue that increasingly surrounds global sporting events: human rights guarantees are judged not only by official promises, but by how institutions behave under pressure. In this case, the treatment of journalists may become one of the clearest measures of whether the tournament’s commitment to openness and accountability is being taken seriously.