The FIFA 2026 World Cup and its Complicity in a Changing Global World Order

By Takura Zhangazha*

Football (soccer if you are from the USA) at the global stage, particularly via the competitive World Cup run by Fifa, was always sort of meant to unite people of all countries. In adulation at global sporting prowess as opposed to military war. 

Almost like the more historical global Olympics that have had their own iconic moments. 

This year's Fifa 2026 world cup tournament does not give that impression or aura of the 'beautiful game'. It comes across as an awkward version of Cold War football. For many reasons. 

I will focus on three before expanding my argument. 

The first is that this 2026 tournament is occuring in a world where there is no longer a shared understanding of global multi-lateralism via the United Nations Charter. 

Mainly because of Donald Trump even as a host president and his racist domestic and international relations politics.

 As well as his direct desires at global unilateralism under the mantra of 'Making America Great Again' (MAGA). 

I mention this first reason because it reflects a renewed trend at mixing global politics with global sporting competitions. 

Hence we see the bans on some countries either from entry into host ones or long standing moratoriums on others such as Russia due to international relations differences couched in either drug or substance abuse claims. 

Yet we can read between the lines when a Somali referee is banned from entering the USA or when Canada treats a Ghanaian player with moral high handedness before he even goes to trial (football fans here will remember the case of Edward Mendy who was acquitted of the charges brought against him).

Or when the Iranian national football team has to fly between Mexico and the USA for games it should be playing in the latter. With the obvious reason being that the USA government wants to prove a point about its illegal war (in tandem with Israel) on Iran. 

Something that any genuine football fan can immediately see as completely unfair and not being done in the name of the once 'beautiful game'. 

The second reason is again based on the global west's (Europe in particular) increasingly racist approach to global sporting competitions and an unwritten desire to control the 'victory' narrative. Via its regulatory sports bodies, media and pundits. 

Almost as a retention of former colonial glories about always being better at sports than the rest of the world (read as natives).  

Hence, again, the retention of football players of African or even global south parentage/origin for their talent while actively kicking out immigrants of colour from their countries.

 Including burning down their homes as was recently the case in Northern Ireland of Great Britain. Or the massive anti-immigration marches in England of the same country. 

What this points to and regretably so is a subtle re-emergence of racism in sport. One that is sanitised in two ways. 

Namely, that you can become a good sportsperson of foreign origin (to Europe/North America) if you are quite literally exceptionally talented to be accepted. Or that despite your talent and where your actual country of origin stands on internationa relations you will never get the opportunity to demonstrate same said sporting talent. Unless you acquire 'their' citizenship. 

Or be frustrated as it was with the case of Iran, Russia, Venezuela and a number of African countries (DRC, Senegal, Ghana, South Africa) that have faced serious challenges just to get to not only being at the Fifa 2026 world cup tournament. But a myriad of others beyond football before. 

The third reason, which is perhaps the most obvious, is that of the 'corporatisation' of not only the 'beautiful game' but also global sport. 

Where and when sport is treated as a business, it ceases to unite peoples in genuine sporting competition. As has been seen with global football via the Saudis, Spanish, Germans and the British. 

Places where money matters and players are traded as though they are cattle. With their own money motivated complicity of course!

Even if this 'corporatisation' satisfies our need for immediate entertainment or quasi religious football templates, it affects the long term future of the sport as being one based on genuine global competition. 

I will also use an anectode here. In a pub conversation, while watching for example African players in the English Premier Leagues demonstrate their prowess at that level, we always ask the question, why dont they play as well for their countries. 

Either at the African Cup of Nations or the World Cup? The inevitable answer is always its about the money or neocolonial narratives about how sports administration is better in the global north. 

My impression however is that its all about inferiority complexes stemming from 'corporatisation' culture of a once unifying global sport. 

Finally, the Fifa World Cup 2026 has shown us signs that football is now a political ball game. Almost as though it never helped the world to see a better equitable future for all. Even with its example of former South African president Nelson Mandela attending the final bid announcement for hosting the 2010 version. 

Or the story of Pele, Roger Milla, Iniesta as examples of how being underdogs can unite the world in optimism against all odds. 

This Fifa World Cup 2026 has no optimism, is too politicised and does not give any signs, as in the past, of a better global equality future! 

But its the 'beautiful game'. We will watch, laugh, support, even bet!  But we will still read between the lines! 

*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity

Zanu Pf's Elitist, Populist Factionalism as a National Burden for Zimbabwe #CAB3

By Takura Zhangazha*

The second reading of Constitutional Amendment Bill Number 3 happened on Wednesday 03 June 2026 in the Parliament of Zimbabwe. I watched it fairly closely on an online livefeed. 

It was a reading led by the current minister of justice Ziyambi Ziyambi. 

He read the justifications of the bill with relative gusto and against a backdrop of fairly loud support from ruling Zanu Pf members of the House of Assembly. 

He also used odd metaphors of airport runways and aeroplanes. This was about how you can change lengths of airport runways (duration of terms of office of the president) but cant change the pilot of the aeroplane that arrives at the runway (by inference incumbent ED Mnangagwa).

Or something like that. It was hard to follow how that metaphor was helping clarify, at least to a watching Zimbawean public, what it was intended to mean. 

To be honest it came across as pretensive and performative. Particularly where and when he then mentions issues around electoral toxicity and our (still current) electoral cycle of a five year harmonised term for the executive, legislature amd local government.  

Even moreso when he tried to justify the changes to the judicial appointment system. Or that of the emergence of a triple election management system that now brings back the Registrar General, a new Zimbabwe Election Delimitation Commission (ZETDC) and the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC). 

While extensively citing long standing opposition figures like Tendai Biti and Charlton Hwende among others as having propositioned the proposals. 

As he covered many other aspects of CAB3 such as the issue of the changing of the phrase around our national defence forces to 'uphold' versus 'protect' the constitution, he was slightly more cautious in his wording. 

For completely understandable reasons. Though he did not directly mention it, he probably had the 2017 events at the back of his or his speechwriters mind. 

A mind backdrop in which while not mentioning the liberation war struggle for Zimbabwe directly he was tryimg to argue that politics should lead the gun without ambiguity. 

However it still gave the impression of being elitist, pretensive and sadly choreographed.

 There was no sense of any organic liberatory politics to this second reading of CAB3 or its justification by Ziyambi Ziyambi. 

Even when he tried to justify a further politicisation of traditional chiefs roles. We know that the majority of them were colonially appointed after the first Chimurenga. And that their some of their  lineages have the insignia Rhodesia written all over them anyway.

By the time MP Zvobgo gave a joint parliamentary committee report on the second reading with contestable outreach figures about what the public said about CAB3 it was not pursuasive in the least. 

It apeared more of a rehearsed and agreed to report with the minister save for its averment that the gender commission should remain. 

The key point however is to state the obvious to all of us as Zimbabweans. We cannot continue to shoulder the burden of the ruling Zanu Pfs elitist factionalism. From the nationalists through to the war veterans, refugees, detainees, mujibhas, chimbwidos and now these so called 'zvigananda'. 

Including too a very highly complicit parliamentary and local government political opposition presence and support for Zanu Pf's elitist factionalism for material gain. 

Hence they are still in Parliament pretending to argue or in local government and privatising water and other social amenities.

So we have a national burden cdes. It may not be as argued in an anti-colonial historical book, the 'Black Man's Burden' by Basil Davidson. 

But it is now a national burden all the same. And we can see it in the abuse of the masses via materialism, shallow populism and religion. 

It is also one in which Zanu Pf and its elitist factionalism seeks to transpose itself on our national political culture in perpetuity. While creating factional oligarchies in our national political economy beyond 2030

And repeat their 2017 suçcession battles even in 2026 or by the time of their elective congress in 2027. 

*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity