#广场预测世界杯赢40000U The USA-Canada-Mexico World Cup has wrapped up, and Spain’s title win isn’t the finish line—controversy is still filling the screen

On July 20 Beijing time, in the 2026 USA-Canada-Mexico World Cup final, the Spain national team eliminated Argentina, winning the trophy for the first time in 16 years. With that, this World Cup has come to an end.
As the first World Cup in history expanded to 48 teams, the overall performance of this tournament was still quite impressive, and it achieved major success in commercial development—according to reports from US media, this edition’s commercial revenue is expected to reach $10 billion, becoming the first sports event in history to hit the “hundred-million-level” milestone. However, problems such as the host venues being highly dispersed, repeated debates over officiating decisions, and deep political interference have repeatedly sparked discussion, raising more challenges for how this global top-tier sports IP will be operated in a healthy and sustainable way going forward.
This edition had 16 match cities across 3 host countries: the United States, Canada, and Mexico. From Vancouver in Canada, the northernmost city, to Guadalajara in Mexico, the southernmost city, the tournament spanned over 4,000 kilometers. From San Francisco in the west to Boston in the east, the distance between venues was also nearly 4,000 kilometers. Such a vast geographic spread combined with the expanded format to 48 teams, producing 104 matches in total, has placed a heavy travel burden on many participating teams; while some teams—including the host United States—have benefited from local advantages, so the strain of travel is noticeably lighter.
As a result, the fairness of competition in this World Cup has at one point been widely questioned. England can be considered one of the most “travel-worn” teams in this tournament: the whole squad accumulated a total flight distance of 27,146 kilometers across match sites. By comparison, for the host Mexico team, 4 of its 5 matches were held in Mexico City, with a total distance of only 924 kilometers. England’s travel distance is more than 29 times that of Mexico. Among the teams that reached the semifinals, France had its first 6 matches all concentrated in the US Northeast coast cities of New Jersey, Philadelphia, and Boston, with only 3,244 kilometers of total flying. Meanwhile, Spain—also a semifinalist—flew 24,172 kilometers, more than 7 times France’s figure.
Regarding the long-distance travel in this World Cup, US fitness expert Dan Daneshvar said long flights can disrupt players’ schedules, cause dehydration, trigger muscle stiffness, increase the risk of injuries, and weaken reaction speed and aerobic ability. “Long-distance travel has become an important part of the competitive environment. It may not decide the final outcome, but it will definitely have some impact.” For the sake of maintaining fairness, this World Cup introduced more high-tech assistance methods, such as a significant upgrade to the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) system. Under the new rules, VAR is allowed to review cases where a player is sent off due to having received two yellow cards. If the second yellow card is determined to be an obvious misjudgment, VAR can request the main referee to cancel the red card. However, the widespread use of high-tech measures did not clearly reduce outside criticism of officiating decisions—it instead sparked more controversy.
Industry insiders believe the excessive involvement of VAR in this World Cup led to “millimeter-level” calls disrupting the flow of the match, and that inconsistent enforcement standards by referees across different matches and different teams are key reasons why controversies over officiating have only increased. So far, at least 3 teams (Croatia, Egypt, and Iran) have formally filed appeals with FIFA. In the Round of 16, Croatia had three goals disallowed after they were initially ruled as goals, which triggered strong dissatisfaction from Croatia’s side.
Croatia’s football association then sent a letter to FIFA, questioning the application of sensor data and the compliance and reasonableness of cooperation between VAR and on-field referees, and提出 two core demands: first, to require FIFA to conduct a thorough analysis of all disputed decisions in this match and provide a complete explanation; second, to release full footage from the VAR referee room to improve transparency of World Cup officiating.
The Round of 16 clash between the Argentina and Egypt teams pushed officiating controversies to a climax. In Egypt’s Round of 8 match, a go-ahead goal scored by “The Pharaohs’” forward Mostafa Zaki was ruled to have been a foul committed earlier in the attacking sequence after VAR review, and the goal was disallowed. After the match, Egypt’s head coach Hossam Hassan angrily lashed out: “They might as well just hand the championship to Argentina!” Egypt’s football association has also filed an official complaint with FIFA against French referee François Letexier and his officiating team. In addition, head coach Deschamps of France, head coach Yakin of Switzerland, and others have also expressed dissatisfaction with referees’ decisions. If venue arrangements and officiating disputes were still considered technical issues related to tournament operations, then deep political interference in football has become the most criticized aspect of this World Cup.
In this World Cup, US President Trump had also deeply intervened in the event process. Multiple media outlets reported that during the incident involving a red card for the US forward Balogoon, Trump directly called FIFA President Gianni Infantino to request a review. He himself also publicly admitted: “I had to call Gianni Infantino.” After that, Trump also publicly thanked Infantino on social media platforms. In response, UEFA released a tough statement, accusing that this decision “crossed the red line.” Football associations from multiple countries and several prominent figures in the sport also expressed anger and shock.
In addition, the excessive commercialization and entertainment of this World Cup has also drawn controversy. Measures seen as aiming to enhance entertainment value and commercial operations—such as awarding championship rings and adding performance shows during the halftime of the final (halftime would be extended from the traditional 15 minutes to nearly half an hour)—were regarded by many in football as “unnecessary.” Opponents argued that forcibly embedding many symbols of American sports culture on this global stage makes it “too American,” and that the halftime show time significantly exceeded the allotted rest period, violating competition rules.
The USA-Canada-Mexico World Cup, which was loud for nearly 40 days, has now ended. Whether it’s successful experience or hosting disputes, in the coming period they will become the focus of heated discussion in international football circles. For a top-tier sports IP like the World Cup, and for FIFA—the most influential single sports organization operating the World Cup—how to effectively ensure a balanced and healthy development of both competitive integrity and commercial interests is likely to be a long-term and arduous challenge.