The FIFA World Cup and the Politics of Bread and Circuses: The Spectacle That Reshapes Global Attention

Júlia Saraiva

In Ancient Rome, emperors understood that political stability depended not only on military strength but also on controlling public attention. Thus emerged the policy of panem et circenses—bread and circuses—an expression used by the Roman poet Juvenal to criticize the imperial strategy of providing food and grand spectacles to the population while structural issues such as inequality, corruption, and political disputes remained in the background.

More than two thousand years later, this logic appears to have survived. Gladiators have given way to athletes, the Colosseum has been replaced by ultra-modern stadiums, and the spectacle has become global. The FIFA World Cup, the world’s largest sporting event, generates billions of dollars, attracts heads of state, mobilizes the international press, and captures the attention of millions of people. It is no exaggeration to say that, for a few weeks, the global agenda revolves around football.

It is precisely at this point that Agenda-Setting Theory helps us understand the phenomenon.

Developed by researchers Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw, the theory emerged from a study conducted during the 1968 U.S. presidential election and was later published in the 1972 article The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media. The authors’ central conclusion was that the media does not necessarily determine what people think; rather, it strongly influences what people think about.

In other words, political competition is also a competition for attention.

When certain issues dominate headlines, sports broadcasts, and social media for weeks, other events inevitably receive less coverage. This does not imply the existence of a media conspiracy or a deliberate concealment of facts. Rather, it means acknowledging that public attention is limited and that some events are powerful enough to monopolize it.

The 2026 FIFA World Cup offers an emblematic example of this process.

Hosted by the United States, Canada, and Mexico, the tournament should represent a showcase of American soft power—a concept developed by Joseph Nye to describe a country’s ability to influence others through culture, values, and attraction, as opposed to hard power, which relies on military, economic, or political coercion.

Historically, the United States has used Hollywood, music, universities, and sports as instruments of international projection. Yet the 2026 World Cup exposes a contradiction: while the country seeks to present itself as the host of the world’s greatest sporting spectacle, the Trump administration has intensified policies associated with hard power, particularly in the field of immigration.

The tightening of visa restrictions, stricter border controls, and the visible presence of ICE—the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency—around the tournament have transformed the celebration of football into a space permeated by political tensions.

According to reports published by G1 and human rights organizations, ICE’s operations have generated concern among immigrant communities, many of whom fear detentions and intensified inspections during the event. In one of the most controversial episodes, reports suggested that football was being used as “bait” to locate undocumented immigrants, further increasing the sense of insecurity among foreign residents in the United States.

The contradiction becomes even more striking because the World Cup, by definition, is meant to symbolize the free movement of people, cultural exchange, and integration among nations. Yet some fans face difficulties entering the country precisely at the moment when FIFA promotes the tournament as a global celebration.

The Iranian case is perhaps the most emblematic.

Amid escalating tensions between Washington and Tehran and the worsening conflict involving the United States and Iran, the Iranian national team has become an involuntary protagonist in a broader geopolitical dispute.

Players and officials have encountered bureaucratic obstacles, while Iranian supporters have struggled to attend matches in person. On the field, members of the national team have even delivered messages of peace and unity, highlighting the discomfort of representing a country embroiled in an international crisis during an event that claims to unite peoples.

Paradoxically, while these episodes unfold, global attention remains fixed on the spectacle.

Discussions revolve around the quality of the pitches, teams’ performances, audience records, and the atmosphere inside the stadiums. Debates on immigration, foreign policy, and human rights have not disappeared, but they occupy a much smaller space in light of the event’s magnitude.

It is in this sense that the politics of bread and circuses remains relevant today.

It does not require censorship, nor does it demand the elimination of public debate. All it takes is an event powerful enough to reshape priorities and monopolize collective attention.

FIFA itself seems to understand this logic.

Although the organization presents itself as politically neutral and as a defender of unity among nations, it has faced criticism over its handling of the controversies surrounding the 2026 World Cup. FIFA President Gianni Infantino has avoided directly confronting U.S. immigration policies and has been criticized both for his close relationship with Donald Trump and for the controversy surrounding the awarding of a peace prize to the American president.

The absence of stronger positions reinforces the perception that, for FIFA, preserving the spectacle is more important than confronting the political conflicts surrounding it.

Moreover, the constant presence of political leaders at matches demonstrates that the World Cup is far from being a neutral space. Figures such as Marco Rubio, the United States Secretary of State and a highly polarizing figure in American politics, use the tournament as a symbolic stage for political projection and nationalism.

Football, therefore, is not separate from politics. On the contrary, it is one of its most powerful arenas.

If in Ancient Rome bread and circuses served to keep the population entertained while the Empire faced its contradictions, today mega sporting events perform a similar function on a global scale. The 2026 FIFA World Cup does not eliminate America’s political conflicts, nor does it erase international tensions. Yet by concentrating the world’s attention on the spectacle, it contributes to pushing many of these issues away from the center of public debate.

And perhaps this is the clearest demonstration that the politics of bread and circuses never truly disappeared.

It simply learned how to play football.

“The views expressed here are solely those of the author.”

Júlia Saraiva, holds a Bachelor’s degree in International Relations from UniLaSalle-RJ and is currently pursuing a postgraduate degree in Political Science and International Relations at FAAP. Her academic research focuses on U.S. and Middle Eastern policies, with an emphasis on the influence of lobbying groups, military strategies, and diplomatic relations in the region. She is a researcher at the Center for International Relations Studies (CERES) and works as an international business consultant specializing in corporate internationalization.