FIFA 2026: A Goal for Growth

The excitement of young men and women in yellow and green jerseys, as I saw them descend the escalator at the airport, made me feel good.

Emblazoned across their jerseys was just one word: Brazil.

When I asked whether they were American fans of the Brazilian football team, or Brazilians who had come to watch the matches, a beaming young man exclaimed in a heavy Portuguese accent, “We Brazil. We come to watch match. Here. Tomorrow.”

It was 12 June, and I had arrived at New York’s JFK Airport. I did not know then that, on the following day, Brazil would play Morocco in the 2026 FIFA World Cup at a nearby stadium.

I realised these fans would soon go to MetLife Stadium, officially designated as the New York New Jersey Stadium, in East Rutherford, New Jersey.

One could sense that football mania had gripped the region, not just through the giant posters, billboards, full-page newspaper ads, or colourful merchandise, but through the very pulse of the city. The infectious excitement was unmistakably in the air.

FIFA 2026 features 104 matches spread across 16 host cities in 3 countries: the United States, Canada, and Mexico.

The stadium hosting the most matches is Dallas Stadium in Arlington, Texas, with nine games. Close behind it, hosting eight games each, are the New York New Jersey Stadium, Los Angeles Stadium, Atlanta Stadium, Miami Stadium, and BC Place Vancouver.

Metlife--NewYork_NewJersey_Stadium

As we drove past the New York New Jersey Stadium, I could not help but admire the massive signboards and preparations for a month-long football fiesta that will culminate in the World Cup Final at the same venue.

The Brazil–Morocco match -- the only Brazil match held so far -- may have ended in a 1–1 draw, but Brazil will always remain one of football’s most celebrated nations. No country has won the FIFA World Cup a record five times, as it has done. Whether they will lift the trophy again is a question only time can answer.

Yet beyond the goals, trophies, and celebrations lies a bigger story. The FIFA World Cup is also a powerful economic engine.

Major tournaments attract millions of visitors and generate billions of dollars in economic activity. Hotels fill up, restaurants welcome new customers, local transportation systems see increased usage, and small businesses benefit from the influx of visitors. From construction workers and hospitality staff to security personnel and event managers, thousands of jobs are created directly and indirectly.

Host nations also use the World Cup as a catalyst for long-term development. Stadiums are upgraded, airports expanded, roads improved, and public transportation strengthened. While football may last only a few weeks, the infrastructure investments often serve communities for decades afterward.

The benefits are not merely financial. The World Cup brings together people from different languages, cultures, religions, and political systems. For a few weeks, billions of people focus on a common passion. Rivalries remain on the pitch, while friendships are built in the stands, airports, restaurants, and city streets.

Consider the United States and Iran, both participants in FIFA 2026. Politics may place nations on opposite sides, and even at war, but sport creates opportunities for respect, dialogue, and shared experiences. Football cannot solve every conflict, but it can remind us of our common humanity.

That may be the World Cup’s greatest achievement. It does not simply crown a champion. It stimulates economies, accelerates development, showcases nations, and unites people across borders. 

In a world too often divided by conflict and uncertainty, FIFA 2026 offers something refreshingly different: a celebration where competition inspires progress, and where everyone, in some way, emerges a winner.

********

For a critical look on the "Fifa Economics" - on how FIFA earns, and how host nations might lose, check out this YouTube video: 

Rules of War: Does Anyone Care?

Despite the popular adage—that we often use without much thought—all is not fair. Neither in love nor in war.

So, are there really ‘rules of war’?

Yes, absolutely, says Amnesty International. Today, we know the codification of these rules as ‘International Humanitarian Law,’ which includes the Geneva Conventions recognized by 196 countries, according to its website. Applicable in armed conflicts, the rules are intended to be universal and neutral.

The main objective is to reduce human suffering caused by war. But we can see that it is largely going unheeded.

The fundamental principles of the rules of war—humanity, military necessity, distinction, proportionality, and precaution—are often ignored, if not totally violated.

The principle of ‘humanity’ forbids unnecessary suffering, injury, and destruction, while ‘military necessity’ permits only the force required to achieve legitimate military objectives.

And while the ‘distinction’ principle requires parties to differentiate between civilians and combatants, allowing attacks only on military targets and never intentionally on civilians, ‘proportionality’ prohibits attacks on military targets if the expected civilian harm would be excessive compared to the anticipated military advantage. 

The fifth principle, ‘precaution,’ obliges constant care to minimize harm to civilians and civilian objects.

Together, these principles form the core framework guiding conduct in war. But how do they translate into practical obligations?

Practical Obligations

First, civilians must be protected at all times. Even when attacking legitimate military targets, all parties are required to take every possible precaution to avoid or minimize harm to civilians and damage to civilian property. This includes careful targeting and restraint in the use of force.

Second, anyone who falls into the hands of a party to the conflict must be treated humanely. This applies to prisoners of war, detainees, and the wounded or sick, regardless of which side they belong to.

Third, victims of war must be protected through the delivery of humanitarian aid such as food, water, and medicine. Parties must allow and facilitate such assistance.

Finally, these rules must be applied without discrimination—no one should be treated differently based on race, religion, nationality, or political beliefs.

Modern Framework

In modern times, for this framework, we must acknowledge the work of at least four individuals or entities—Henri Dunant, Francis Lieber, the ICRC, and Fyodor Fyodorovich Martens. They turned moral concern into legal norms.

Henri Dunant, moved by the suffering after the Battle of Solferino, wrote A Memory of Solferino. His work led to the founding of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in 1863 and to the first Geneva Convention in 1864.

Meanwhile, Francis Lieber drafted the Lieber Code (1863) during the American Civil War under Abraham Lincoln, marking the first comprehensive codification of wartime conduct.

The ICRC, since 1864, has been guiding the development of international humanitarian law, linking humanitarian ideals with state adoption of treaties.

Fyodor Fyodorovich Martens further strengthened this framework through the Martens Clause at the Hague Peace Conference, affirming that even without specific laws, all remain protected by principles of humanity and public conscience.

Geneva Conventions

The most remarkable outcomes from their work are the four 1949 Geneva Conventions, adopted in response to the inhumanities of World War II. They mainly updated and added to previous Geneva Conventions (1864, 1906, 1929).

Today, these four Geneva Conventions and their additional protocols, as international treaties, protect people who do not take part in the fighting (civilians, medics, aid workers) and those who can no longer fight (wounded, sick, and shipwrecked troops, prisoners of war). 

Implementation matters

Yes. This law exists—but without enforcement, it is hollow. 

War may be complex, but humanity is not negotiable. These rules must be upheld, and those who violate them must be held accountable—firmly and without exception.

Countries which say that they targeted a wrong place and unfortunately killed innocents, because they relied on old data, or countries which say that, oh, well, civilians die, it's collateral damage, should be all put to trial.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) in Hague, for instance, must not only try such careless leaders for war crimes, but after trial, even put them in prison, if convicted, as an example to other.

Nations must be questioned and punished, where needed.

Law is no law if it cannot be effectively implemented.

Reporters of War: Digital Media Challenges

Wartime journalism demands a particular kind of discipline. It requires restraint, verification, and a deep commitment to accuracy—qualities that are often neglected when events unfold rapidly and emotions run high.

Today’s media environment makes that discipline harder than ever to maintain.

In an era of round-the-clock connectivity and 24×7 news channels, editors and journalists feel relentless pressure to stay ahead of the curve. The fear of being left behind drives many to share information as it happens, in real time.

However, when reporting becomes a race, speed is eagerly pursued, and verification is often neglected. And when verification is neglected, truth becomes the casualty.

The modern digital networks have made the challenge even greater. Images and videos now emerge from every corner of the world within seconds of an event. Cyberspace quickly fills with countless visuals, many captured on high-definition mobile phones by ordinary people who happen to be at the scene.

For journalists competing not only with rival news outlets but also with social media algorithms, the temptation to publish immediately is enormous. News must appear before it becomes stale—before platforms push it down users’ feeds and user attention starts to shift elsewhere.

This urgency often leads to serious mistakes.

Since the start of the latest war in West Asia on February 28, 2026, troubling examples have already emerged. A senior news editor shared videos on social media that were entirely incorrect: buildings in Bahrain were presented as buildings in Dubai, and an old video of a drone strike in Kyiv, Ukraine, in 2024 was circulated as a new attack in Manama, Bahrain, in 2026.

In another instance, a well-known television news anchor announced arrests that had never actually taken place. The information, apparently received from unnamed sources, was later debunked and quietly retracted.

At the same time, AI-generated images of drones and missiles have circulated online as though they depict real events.

What makes these incidents particularly concerning is that this misinformation did not originate from some anonymous social media users. It was shared by professional journalists and established news outlets—the very institutions we rely upon to verify facts before broadcasting them to the public.

Too often, sensationalism and speed appear to take precedence over accuracy. News is forwarded and amplified before its authenticity is confirmed.

In our digitally connected world, the consequences are serious. False information spreads at extraordinary speed. Before journalists have time to correct themselves, misleading posts may already have been shared thousands of times.

By then, the damage is done, and, even if corrected, the truth may never travel as far as the falsehood.

If journalists must really be respected as purveyors of truth, especially in times of war, they must exercise discipline and caution. 

The responsibility of journalism is not merely to be first, but to be right.

News organizations may feel pressure to compete with rival channels, and to satisfy the relentless demands of the digital news cycle. Yet their highest responsibility is not to power, nor to algorithms, but to the public they serve.

In moments of conflict, when fear and uncertainty run high, misinformation can inflame tensions, deepen divisions, and distort reality.

Truth, verification, and restraint must remain the core principles of journalism. Speed may win attention for a moment, but credibility is what sustains trust over time. And in the end, it is credibility—not immediacy—that defines the true value of journalism.

----- ----- ----