The report says late negotiations over entry to the United States led Iran to settle in Tijuana, with players reportedly required to leave the country after matches under Department of Homeland Security guidelines. Documents for the squad allegedly arrived shortly before the opening game, while some members of the wider staff were denied entry.
That created an uncomfortable distinction between the players and the travelling party. A training base is supposed to provide routine, recovery and focus; cross-border movement introduces uncertainty before the football even begins.
Mexico’s willingness to host Iran made Tijuana a workable solution in practice. Iranian officials later described the city as a “second home”, but the complaints over visas and travel showed that the arrangement was hardly straightforward.
Giuliani rejected the idea that Iran had been placed at a sporting disadvantage, arguing that comparable travel challenges affected other teams. The task force also pointed to measures intended to preserve fairness, including allowing Iran early entry for its match in Seattle.
That defence may satisfy administrators, but it does not remove the broader concern. Tournament football is often decided by small margins, and preparation can be affected by accommodation, transport, training access and staff availability. Even when the players can cross the border, the uncertainty around the process can become a distraction.
The controversy also underlines how quickly football can become entangled with foreign policy. Iran’s campaign has placed sporting administration, immigration controls and security screening in the same conversation.
As the World Cup moves forward, the focus will turn to whether future tournaments create clearer rules for teams facing diplomatic restrictions. For Iran, the lasting question is whether Tijuana will be remembered as a practical refuge-or as a symbol of football being forced to operate inside a political storm.