All Whites take centre stage in World Cup's political minefield
Sunday, 14 June 2026
For sports-mad, geographically isolated New Zealand, the All Whites' World Cup opener against Iran is a football match. For much of the rest of the world, it is a geopolitical stress test influenced as much by US border officials, as by goals.
New Zealand has been pitted against a country whose World Cup participation has been shadowed by war, diplomatic disputes, travel bans and questions over whether politics can be kept off the pitch.
Olé Football Academy chairman Dave Wilson is headed to the game with trepidation. He travelled to Iran to watch his son Michael play for New Zealand in 2003, and sees trouble looming.
“Having been to Tehran, it will be nothing short of a miracle if that match in LA goes off without incident,” he tells the Sunday Star-Times, citing culture clashes as well as security.
Read More:
The World Cup has always been political. What is unusual for this one is the politics are occurring at the border. Only Mexico, South Korea, Canada and Qatar play no pool games in the US.
Iran will play at least three matches in the US, but political tensions have them staying and training in Mexico. They have to fly in shortly before matches and leave soon after, having to convince US border security every time.
If they do get into the US, there are other risks. Usually, football security is aimed at keeping rivals fans from warring. Not this time.
Security planners are more worried about the prospect of Iran becoming a magnet for protests by exiled dissidents, human rights activists and supporters of the Tehran regime.
Iranian officials have already warned Fifa over anti-government chants and opposition flags at World Cup venues.
So the All Whites could find themselves in the middle of one of the Mexico-Canada-US co-hosted tournament's most politically-charged atmospheres.
And if New Zealand win, Iran could claim foul, with some level of justification. Iran's football federation this week said its ticket allocation had been pulled, leaving supporters unable to attend matches.
A US administration official was quoted in The Guardian as saying: “We will not allow the Iranian team to abuse this system to sneak terrorists into the United States under false pretences.”
Iran’s embassy in Turkey said support staff had been denied visas, with 15 administrative and management staff concerned, an Iranian diplomat and state TV said.
The embassy called it “deliberate and discriminatory treatment against Iran’s national football team” and called for Fifa “to hold the US accountable for violations of its rules”.
When the United States and Iran met at the 1998 Fifa World Cup in France, the match attracted both tight security and demonstrations by Iranian opposition groups.
Iran won 2-1 in what was described as the 'most politically charged game in World Cup history'.
Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei was aggressive post match.
“Our players’ victory over the United States is a beautiful image of Iran's national struggle in all aspects of life … tonight the strong and arrogant rival once again tasted the bitter taste of defeat at [the players'] hands.”
The two countries were not at war then. This New Zealand-Iran fixture comes amid active military and economic tensions, with Iran blocking global oil supply at the Strait of Hormuz.
Fifa-appointed Somalian referee Omar Artan, voted best referee in Africa in 2025, was denied entry to the US when he landed at Miami and forced to return home.
Where this World Cup is unusual is domestic politics overriding the sports body - usually boycotts, bans and exclusions come from within the sport.
One exception also involved New Zealand - when the South African apartheid regime said it did not want the All Blacks to contain Māori players.
University of Waikato international law specialist Dr Al Gillespie highlighted the US actions as “poor”.
“The US turning back any accredited players or officials, or making it unduly difficult for them, for a World Cup match, is poor. I see these people as ambassadors for the sport. It is for Fifa to decide, not the host nation.”
In general there was good reason not to mix sport and politics, he said.
“The value of sporting events, as a way to support cosmopolitan relations, is fantastic. The exception to this is when one country gets asked to play against another, with some form of repugnancy attached to it - which raises the question should that country (say NZ) boycott the event,” he says.
“My answer is no, unless the call for boycott comes from a UN recommendation (as was the case with apartheid South Africa); sanctions set up by domestic law; or one of the leading sports bodies, such as Fifa or the IOC.
“People would be wise to know the current situation of the countries we are playing against (say, the terrible human rights record of Iran), but that logic should apply to all countries, not just Iran.
“And that is a job for governments to inform, not players to parade. For our football players, this is a delicate position, as they will be ambassadors – to an event which the entire world will be watching.”
Always, the lead up to major sporting festivals is painted in “this is politically bad” hues, with talk of the host country’s failings, as in Qatar (2022 World Cup), Russia (2018) and 2008 Olympic Games hosts China.
And then the sport begins, and people trump politics.
It is hard to quash the joy of Japanese fans dressed as sushi, Croatians covered in red-and-white squares, the Dutch in wall-to-wall orange, the dancing Brazilians with their grim-looking Canarinho Pistola mascot ( the Pissed-Off Canary) and Mexicans in masks, suits, capes or massive sombreros.
Dr Vicki Andonopoulos, lecturer in marketing at the University of Sydney, backs people-power winning out over politics.
“Fan involvement can push aside politics. The fact that it is a quadrennial event makes it even more powerful in fan ability to swamp politics,” she says.
As well it is the era of social media, where fun abounds.
“Social media will push a more positive spin of events in the lead up to this World Cup vs others. Similar to recent Olympic Games, it will be a chance to put aside everything else and focus on 'the game'.”
New Zealand has already provided the perfect example, in All White Tim Payne - now a social media superstar after being highlighted by an Argentine influencer.
New Zealand are the lowest-ranked team of 48, yet Payne’s fame is soaring above more-esteemed footballers before the first ball is kicked.
“People love an underdog,” Andonopoulos says.
“This is exactly what happened with [Payne]. Social media is saturated with ultra famous individuals, and this can sometimes become repetitive and unsurprising.
“When an underdog gets made famous by the people, it generates novelty and a true sense of fun, ignites feelings and emotions and makes people happy. That's why he got so popular!”
So the World Cup may arrive entangled in arguments about visas, protests and geopolitics. But somehow an Argentine influencer has turned a man called Tim into a cult hero.
While politics may dominate the headlines, football still has a habit of stealing the show.