For many Black diaspora fans, African nations remain the first point of attachment. The expanded tournament has widened that connection through teams such as Cape Verde and DR Congo. When those sides exit, support can shift towards Black players, adopted homelands or countries seen as politically sympathetic.
That movement makes national identity less fixed than tournament branding suggests. A supporter can back France because of Ousmane Dembélé’s multicultural symbolism, England because of its majority-Black squad, or another team because its players reflect a family’s migration story.
France’s squad has become a powerful image of multicultural football, even as Kylian Mbappé has faced racist abuse from a Paraguayan senator. England presents a sharper contradiction: its players are celebrated as national representatives while immigration remains a major political fault line.
That tension was highlighted when Reform MP Robert Jenrick posted “Come on England” while also saying he wanted immigration to be “less than zero”. For supporters shaped by migration, the message exposes the gap between embracing Black footballers and rejecting the communities that helped produce them.
Distrust in has intensified the political reading of major decisions. A disallowed Egypt goal against Argentina, followed by Argentina’s late winner, fuelled claims among some fans that Egypt were being punished after their coach’s comments on Gaza. Donald Trump’s intervention in the reversal of a red card for a United States player has added another layer to concerns over football governance.
The next decisive matches will test whether sporting drama can reclaim the conversation-or whether every refereeing decision, anthem and national celebration will remain part of a wider argument about power, race and belonging.