The clearest historical precedent is the 1938 World Cup in France. Political aggression was already spreading across Europe, and the Second World War began less than 15 months after the final.
The consequences for football were direct. The 1942 and 1946 World Cups were cancelled, making them the only editions not held since the competition began in 1930. A tournament can appear insulated from world events, but it relies on travel, security and international cooperation.
The relationship between conflict and the World Cup has also been more direct. In 1969, tensions between El Salvador and Honduras intensified around qualifying matches before developing into a six-day armed conflict widely known as the Football War.
The meetings between United States and Iran at the 1998 and 2022 World Cups offered a different example. Neither fixture took place during a war between the teams, but both carried diplomatic weight far beyond the result.
That history gives the latest reports added significance. The tournament is not merely arriving during a period of uncertainty; two participating nations are again at the centre of the political conversation.
Iran’s participation had reportedly faced uncertainty before the team confirmed its place. The report says the squad is expected to base itself in Mexico, rather than in the United States, because of the surrounding circumstances.
That arrangement would give Iran a distinctive logistical position in a tournament spread across North America. It also shows how international football can be shaped by decisions made well beyond the pitch.
The opening match will still be judged on tactics, pressure and performance. But as the next fixtures unfold, the larger storyline will be whether football can keep its focus while the world around the World Cup refuses to do so.