The report says Iran’s squad and officials were based in Tijuana, Mexico, and required to travel across the border for matches in the United States. Giuliani argued that arrangement was chosen by Iran.
“It was the Iranian's decision to be based in Tijuana,” he said, adding that the team had previously been based in Tucson and could have entered the country earlier.
For matches in Los Angeles, Giuliani said Iran were permitted to arrive the day before and leave on matchday. His defence was blunt: “Again, a 27-minute flight, not a big deal.”
That may sound practical from an administrative perspective, but international football teams typically expect tournament logistics to provide stability, privacy and equal treatment.
The argument moved beyond travel when Giuliani alleged that Iran was “the only team putting in people with visas that had direct ties to terrorist organisations”.
That is a serious claim, and the exchange described in the report did not provide supporting evidence. Giuliani declined to produce documentation, leaving the allegation unverified rather than established.
The political backdrop makes the dispute even more sensitive. Iran and the United States remain deeply opposed, while footballers and staff can find themselves carrying the weight of decisions made far beyond the pitch.
The report says Iran’s head coach, Amir Ghalenoei, had described his players and staff as “the most oppressed” at the tournament. That language reflects how travel rules and visa decisions were experienced from the Iranian camp.
For organisers, the wider issue is consistency. Security checks may be necessary, but selective restrictions need clear explanations if tournament football is to avoid becoming another stage for political confrontation.
The next storyline will be whether future World Cup hosts publish transparent travel and visa protocols - and whether every participating team believes those rules are being applied fairly.