There are bad ideas, there are ideas that aren’t serious, and then there are ideas so self-defeating they collapse under the weight of their own absurdity before they have even reached the conference room. The suggestion by a US official that Iran should be replaced by Italy at the 2026 FIFA World Cup seems to belong in the third category.

It was rejected by Iran. It was rejected by Italy. It was rejected by FIFA. And when even FIFA quietly brushes the suggestion aside, it may be time to reconsider.

Italian officials were to the point, if faintly embarrassed. “You qualify on the pitch,” said one. Another reportedly called the idea “shameful”. Quite right too. Soccer is many things — tribal, irrational, occasionally sublime — but at its core it still clings to one stubborn principle: places are earned, not gifted by geopolitical whim.

The deeper problem lies in the attempt to launder politics through the language of “security”. We were told by US officials that the Iranian delegation might contain figures linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Perhaps next we will hear that left-backs pose a “threat” to homeland security, or that set-piece coaches require enhanced screening. To weaponize “security concerns” as a pretext for excluding a qualified team is simply politics in shin pads.

Soccer, at its best, serves as a meeting point, a shared language. Nations that barely speak diplomatically have exchanged shirts at full time. Hostile publics have sung the same chants. The World Cup can create the atmosphere in which diplomacy becomes imaginable. To turn it into a continuation of hostility by other means is to misunderstand why the tournament matters.

Indeed, the 2026 World Cup was supposed to offer something richer. A joint tournament hosted by the United States, Canada and Mexico promised to be a cross-border gala of sport and joy. Instead it arrives under the shadow of trade coercion, tariff threats and border theatrics. Mexico is treated by the US as a problem to be fenced off by a border wall. While Canada is urged, with menace, to become a US state.

And history, also has something to say. The last time the US hosted the World Cup in 1994, it was enforcing no-fly zones over Iraq. Now, in 2026, it will be the host again, seemingly while it enforces a blockade in the Strait of Hormuz. This is symptomatic of a country forever trying to package normality and force in the same export crate.

None of this means the US cannot host a great tournament with its neighbors. They almost certainly will host a thrilling spectacle. Children will still fall in love with the game. Formerly unknown players outside their own countries will become household names worldwide. Streets will still ring with chants in multiple languages. Soccer is resilient that way.

But resilience should not be mistaken for permission. The World Cup should not become a stage for score-settling, nor a market exercise in replica shirts nor a border policy with the Stars and Stripes attached.

If the US wants to be lead host of tournament that is remembered for all the right reasons, it should begin by learning the first rule of the cup: you do not ban a qualifier just because they are not to your liking.