EXCLUSIVE: Fans call for USA to be stripped of World Cup hosting rights after Charlie Kirk shot dead
What happened
On September 10, 2025, Charlie Kirk, a 31-year-old conservative political activist and co-founder of Turning Point USA, was shot and killed while speaking at a public event at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah.
The event was outdoors, part of his “American Comeback Tour,” and he was speaking to questions when a shooter, reportedly using a high-powered bolt-action rifle, fired.
Authorities launched a manhunt; a suspect has been taken into custody.
—
Public reaction & safety concerns
The assassination shocked many, triggering outrage across the political spectrum and concern about political violence in the U.S.
There are growing debates about whether the U.S. can guarantee safety in large public events, especially political ones. Some say this reflects a broader erosion of public security and political stability.
—
The calls to strip the U.S. of 2026 World Cup hosting rights
Almost immediately after the shooting, some fans on social media began demanding that FIFA reconsider allowing the U.S. to co-host the 2026 World Cup (with Canada and Mexico), citing the shooting as a sign that the U.S. may not be safe enough for an event of that scale.
Posts include questions like, “How can you have a World Cup in that country?” and “The World Cup can never be hosted in America. How will they handle safety of both players and supporters?”
—
What FIFA has said (so far)
FIFA has not indicated any plan to strip the U.S. of its hosting rights.
They say they are working with various authorities (federal, state, municipal, local) to ensure that fan and player safety and security meet high standards for the 2026 tournament.
—
What are the arguments on both sides
In favour of stripping or revisiting hosting status
1. Safety & Credibility: The sight of a public political figure being assassinated at a university event raises red flags for many about how secure public gatherings are in the U.S. If ordinary public speech events are vulnerable, then some argue, massively scaled international sporting events might be riskier.
2. Perception & Reputation: For many, the U.S. is increasingly seen as unsafe, especially for foreigners. That perception could undermine both fan attendance and participation. FIFA, as a global body, cares about how safe hosts are, and how their safety record is viewed.
3. Precedent & Standards: If serious violence occurs in a host country before a major event, some believe there should be consequences. There is concern that without accountability, safety standards might be overlooked.
Against stripping hosting status
1. Overreaction risk / precedent: Many argue that one tragic event, however shocking, doesn’t necessarily make a country unfit to host. Security lapses happen, but that doesn’t always mean hosting rights must be withdrawn.
2. Logistical & Financial Consequences: Changing hosts or stripping hosting rights would be enormously disruptive. Infrastructure and planning for the 2026 World Cup are already well underway. Immense costs, contracts, and logistical arrangements are at stake.
3. Existing commitments & oversight: Co-hosting was awarded after a process, and FIFA and U.S. authorities have committed to security plans. FIFA has reportedly said they are working with local authorities to ensure safety.
4. Political vs sporting issue: Critics of the calls worry that the demand to strip hosting because of a political assassination conflates political violence with sporting readiness. Some believe that these issues deserve their own separate remedies rather than undermining sporting events.
—
Broader context
The U.S. has had recurrent debates over gun violence, political polarization, and public safety in recent years. Incidents of mass shootings, protests turning violent, and political rhetoric escalating have many concerned about overall domestic stability. The Charlie Kirk killing adds fuel to those fears.
The 2026 World Cup is a huge undertaking: 48 teams, many venues, millions of spectators. The U.S. is to host all the latter stages, including the quarterfinals onward.
—
What would it take to actually strip the U.S. of its hosting rights
FIFA’s legal/contractual framework: There would need to be a rule breach—something in FIFA’s criteria for host safety, or violation of terms, such that it justifies stripping.
Security assessments: Independent assessments of U.S. security protocols would be required to show they are insufficient.
International pressure: Other national associations, governments, or sponsors would need to exert pressure.
Alternative venue readiness: There would need to be credible alternative hosts with infrastructure ready, which is very hard given the scale of planning.
—
My take / analysis
While the calls are understandable emotionally, stripping the U.S. of hosting rights over one incident—even a grave one—seems unlikely in the short term. What is more probable is that this shooting will intensify scrutiny of forthcoming safety plans, security at political events, and more broadly, how the U.S. addresses political violence.
FIFA tends to be cautious about making last-minute changes to World Cup hosting decisions once venues and dates are secured. It would set a strong precedent, but also a risky one, in terms of legal, financial, and logistical fallout.
Also, there’s a question of fairness: many countries suffer from political violence or safety concerns in certain areas—but they still host events. The criteria for removing hosting rights would have to be consistently applied across all hosts.
—
Final thoughts
The Charleston Kirk assassination has opened up a broader public conversation about safety, political violence, and what it means for large international events to be held in countries with recent incidents of violence.
The demand from fans to strip the U.S. of World Cup hosting is real and emotionally charged, but as of now, it remains just that: a public reaction rather than a realistic policy shift.
What the U.S. and FIFA will need to do is reassure the world: demonstrate strong security protocols, transparent investigation of the incident, and proactive measures to avoid similar events.
Any decision by FIFA would need to balance the safety expectations of participants and spectators with the realities of logistics, investment, and precedent.
Leave a Reply