The opening of the finals coincides with renewed attention on the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum, a package designed to reshape how Europe handles borders and asylum claims. Supporters view it as long-delayed reform; critics fear it could make immigration policy harsher.
Virginie Jacob described the change as “the start of a transition rather than an overnight change”, stressing that implementation will determine whether it improves cooperation between states or deepens mistrust.
That debate sits awkwardly alongside football’s traditional promise of movement and connection. Fassoulas called it “a great shame” that events away from the pitch could overshadow the competition.
The cost of attending has created another fault line. Reports suggest final tickets are dramatically more expensive than those at the previous World Cup, with premium options reaching levels far beyond ordinary supporters.
That raises a difficult question for a tournament marketed as a global celebration: who is it actually designed for? Fans may travel across borders to follow their teams, yet many could find the price of entry prohibitive.
The presence of Iran at a tournament hosted by the United States adds an especially sensitive geopolitical layer. Any meeting between the two countries would carry significance beyond the result, placing players and officials inside a wider dispute shaped by conflict and diplomatic tension.
Football cannot resolve those issues, but it can expose them. As the tournament moves through its next fixtures, the challenge will be keeping the sport central without pretending the surrounding world has disappeared.