Connect with us

Opinion

The Political Economy of Cryptocurrency

Published

5 years ago

on

M A Iliasu

 

 

-By Muhammad Ahmad Iliasu.

 

One would have to wonder how huge the work rate of economic theory must be to astonishingly liberate existential debates on the possibility or otherwise, the undertones and the future of currency digitalization – which has been the major talking phenomenon since the slump in 2008. Nevertheless, a free flow of theoretical opinions and treatise prescriptions by established economists, prophecies of doom and suggestions in persuasion by ecosystem commentators is only expected when the phenomenon is a determining factor on the future of money and the role of government.

 

Cryptocurrency as the so-called apolitical and decentralized digital currency is an economic phenomenon like any other, unlike what many people think, and therefore has a meaningful context inside the economic theory. On its own merits, its warranted to say that the economic relevance of the phenomenon takes the courtesy of massaging the idea of the monetary economists who hold immense reservations upon the centralization of money supply and government intervention in general, along the line rattling the scrutiny of the neo-Keynesian economists and their sensitivity to the centralization of money supply and government intervention generally.

 

Predicting the major stand of the two distinguished schools would economically speaking, be as easier as tracing the economic backgrounds of their distinctive arguments. The neo-Keynesians would naturally be anti-cryptocurrency for the threat it cast upon centralization and the policing of financial bubbles. While the monetarists would be more inclined to be pro-cryptocurrency for the opportunity it brings their thoughts on fixation and decentralization. Why they hold their stands should be discussed later in the essay.

 

-What is a cryptocurrency and why has it been introduced?

 

The 2008 global financial crisis was a moment in history during which bankers’ hubris blew out spectacularly. The big number of jobs, businesses, houses and assets lost to crisis crushed people’s optimism to the level where the trust between economic society and bankers alongside their politicians allies arrived under radical scrutiny. People felt the impact of the crisis and therefore no longer trust the engineers that created it – the bankers and the politicians. As a response, the Central Bank governors of the G-20 organized a meeting to discuss how the bankers were to be rescued from the financial disaster. The concerned populace who understood how banking hubris works and what the bailout could turn out to be, began to exercise the hope and thoughts of having a medium of exchange (read: currency or money), that get affected neither by the hubris of bankers nor by the skeptical government intervention. An apolitical money that can’t be controlled by the central, and democratically decentralized in a nature that it’ll be a currency of the people, for the people and by the people.

 

In an attempt to satisfy people’s wish for apolitical currency, an email was received bearing the signature of Satoshi Nakamoto (who is still yet to be to identified) carrying an algorithm that meets people’s ideals, what we currently call “Bitcoin”. The beauty of Nakamoto’s algorithm was that it did away with the ledger run by a central authority but still managed to ensure that a single currency unit could never be copied or spent twice. The whole community using Bitcoin would share in the task by each making available a small part of their computer’s capacity for this purpose. Everyone would observe everyone else’s transactions, ensuring their validity, while at the same time no one would know whose transactions they were observing, safeguarding privacy. Many people around the world were enthused and signed up. Until a large scandal perpetrated by entrepreneurs who exploited people’s fears against fraud to collect their quantity of Bitcoin for safeguarding only for them to run away with it. And with the absence of a centralized controller, people lost their money without insurance or bailout.

 

That was the inception of cryptocurrency and the reason behind its introduction. But as any logical thinker could guess, the nature of the currency and the reasons behind it are all pending the complexities of an ecosystem that doesn’t get easily overrun by the wildness of popular fantasies. Some of those complexities were explained inside the economic theory, experienced in the past, and are the skeletal frameworks forming the arguments of the monetarists and Neo-Keynesians.

 

-Crisis and Logic of History.

 

When the hell of economic crisis broke loose in Europe and America back in 1929, a policy prescription that aimed at controlling inflation was introduced which convinced the US and the European economies to print only the quantity supply of money that corresponds to the same amount of gold reserve, the so-called “Gold Standard”. Through Gold Standard, economies were cuffed to hinder the reckless printing of money – which was the determining factor in the surge of inflation. For if countries are obliged to print money with respect to gold reserve – something with limited, though intrinsic supply – the velocity of money in circulation would be reasonable and the money supply is tied to a commodity that doesn’t get assassinated by inflation. That way, the countries found a standard and common dictator of their currency value, just like the dollar nowadays. But a few years later, the demand for money began to exceed the supply, due to the limited supply of money as a result of printing per unit of gold. And shortly afterward, the story changed. Inflation – an occurrence when the quantity of money in the economy chases the same quantity of a commodity, causing the prices to unhealthily rise – culminated into what the economists call “Deflation” – an occurrence when too less quantity of money chases significantly higher quantity of commodities, causing a significant a fall in the price of goods and services below their actual and reasonable value.

 

The deflation in the US forced the hands of the then government under President Roosevelt, and the European economies, the emissary of which was the famous John Maynard Keynes, to abolish the “Gold Standard”. It was later adopted and abolished once again by President Nixon in the 70s. The underlying rationale behind the consistent execution and abolishing of the policy during the 20th century was informed by the standard economic theory that asserts and has been proven accurate that when money supply is fixed below the rate of public demand, deflation will strike. In the same way, when it is left uncontrolled beyond the public demand, inflation will strike.

 

Along the same curve, the decentralized nature of Cryptocurrency means it can’t be policed by any institution, rather a blockchain that comprises of different unidentified individuals with an asymmetric chance of arriving at a consensus. And when Satoshi Nakamoto (who is yet to be known) explained his algorithm in 2009, it was specified that the total supply of Bitcoin was certainly fixed, with the mining only certain to grow slowly until it reaches a maximum number of 1 million Bitcoins sometime in 2032. That means the digital currency is problematic in two ways; first it makes crisis more likely and secondly it offers no room for government to alleviate the crisis. So the prospects of any economy that gets into bed with cryptocurrency resemble the pre-1929 unpoliced economy that was crushed by absurd inflation. The same way its limited supply renders the prospects of any economy that adopts it to face the threat of post-1929 economy that was plagued by Gold Standard deflation. So in short, with cryptocurrency, it’s either deflation or inflation, with price and currency stability extremely unlikely.

Advert

 

That was the viewpoint of the Neo-Keynesian economists, mostly the alumni of Harvard. The most vocal being the American economist and crisis expert, Professor Roubiel Roubini from the University of New York, who even believes that cryptocurrency has no feature of money. And the Greek economist and author, Professor Yanis Varoufakis from the University of Athens. The latter dedicated a whole chapter to discussing the issue extensively in the prolific crisis-dissecting book, “The Brief History of Capitalism”. While the former is quite consistent with podcasts and interviews.

 

-Modern Sensitivity to Technology and impact of Optimism.

 

In contrast to the belief of the Neo-Keynesians, the most influential figure in the monetary school, Milton Friedman, originally proposed a fixed monetary rule, called Friedman’s k-percent rule, where the money supply would be automatically increased by a fixed percentage per year. Under this rule, there would be no leeway for the central reserve bank, as money supply increases could be determined “by a computer”, and business could anticipate all money supply changes. With other monetarists, he believed that the active manipulation of the money supply or its growth rate is more likely to destabilize than stabilize the economy. So the most important area of concentration is price stability rather than currency stability as proposed by Keynes.

 

The mention of computers by Friedman, and the fixed increase rate of money per year, agrees with two of the three most important features of cryptocurrency, which are digitalization and the fixed increase rate of Bitcoin until 2032. While the consistent castigating of the Central Bank by Friedman and Schwartz skews their idea closer to decentralization than otherwise.

 

The monetarists who are mostly anti-Keynes and subtly pro-decentralization arrived fierce to debunk what they call nostalgia that was inspired by an obsession with post-crisis literature, mostly the contributions of Keynes that comprises of “The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money (1932)” and “A Treatise on Money 1930”. The mainstream among their economic commentators debunks the thesis in some of the post-2008 contributions of Yanis Varoufakis that discussed the economy and future of capitalism. Books like “The Brief History of Capitalism (2014)”, “Adults In the Room: My Battle with Europe’s Deep Establishment (2017), “And The Weak Suffer What They Must: Europe, Austerity and the Threat to Global Stability (2016)”.

 

-Music and Musing; where do I stand?

 

Having observed the possible major stands of the two distinctive schools, the argument of pro-Keynes that revolves around the fixated supply of cryptocurrency was debunked once again by the creation of other types of cryptocurrencies like Ethereum and Dodge, which unlike Bitcoin are of unlimited supply. So one of the two problems of digital currency is said to be eliminated. Meanwhile, while decentralization remains a concern for any individual household that understands the importance and need for government intervention, major technologically-innovative countries like China and Japan are already paving the way for decentralization of their financial institutions to accommodate the cryptocurrency. And the decision is being backed by lucrative optimism from the buyers of Bitcoin and other forms of cryptocurrency, which is driving its value crazily higher than expected. For what that’s worth, it’s certain that cryptocurrency is surging for a reason, the same way it could be said it’s here for a reason. To quixotic commentators, it’s more like the introduction of the computer in the ’80s, so it’ll be correct if termed inevitable. Therefore judging from the flow, perhaps in the grand scheme of things the digital currency would have to be accommodated if it continues to dominate the economy. The question is when?

 

The rhetoric also begs the question; maybe the economists that are using Keynes to reject crypto are indeed plagued by nostalgia and fear that was bred due to consumption of post-crisis literature judging from the way cryptocurrency has been gathering incredible optimism and momentum. The reception it receives from rational and visionary capitalists like Elon Musk suggests so. But equally important are the questions: what would be the future of government without its ability to regulate money supply? What would be the response of America to a phenomenon that could dwarf the demand for the dollar and the democratic nature of which could swindle the dollarization policy? What would be the second reaction of Third World countries whose democracies are so young and fragile, economies too unstable and inconsistent as to give-in to decentralization? What solution is there for the possible reoccurrence of the 2008 e-Theft?

Privatization of Public Spaces: A Tragedy for Land Use Planning in Kano Metropolis

Currently, not enough has been said or shown to indicate the wavering of governmental institutions as to give up their power on the money supply. Chinese and Japanese economies are too advanced to be the sample of inference while judging possible decentralization in countries like Nigeria that has been fighting its second recession in a half-decade, accumulating large chunk of debt and abject recession for almost a decade despite surprisingly being one of the highest traders of the cryptocurrency. It’s no wonder that the CBN banned it outrightly. First for being ignorant of its dynamics as was learned from the governor. And second for having neither the efficient economic environment nor the institutional strength to accommodate it. Likewise, where the accommodation of decentralization is concerned, banking sectors will have to restructure for the death of their last resort – the Central Bank. And when all the transactions are fiat, an existential crisis looms in the employment department of the banking sector.

 

There’s also the case of cryptocurrency as a simultaneous medium of exchange and investment. When it becomes dominant the economic society may fall victim to the fallacy of composition and paradox of thrift, because more people would rather save their money in crypto to enjoy its speedy appreciation in value than do otherwise. And that would put the multiplier effect of disposable income and immediate consumption in jeopardy. The circular flow of income may turn into a vicious circle of rational economic households looking to outsmart themselves for profit but are subconsciously crushing the entire ecosystem. The digital running of the currency as an investment medium will remain the major avenue of investment, and little do we forget that it’s greatly influenced by speculation. And like Keynes said in the prophetic “General Theory: “Speculators may do no harm as bubbles on a steady stream of enterprise. But the position is serious when an enterprise becomes a bubble on a whirlpool of speculation. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill done.”

 

The Keynesian prophets of doom should do kindly as to exercise patience. In the same way, the monetarists should enjoy their giant leap forward towards decentralization. Who is right shall be vindicated by time. If it’s the Keynesians the status quo lives on. And if it’s the monetarists we can look back to 2008 and say the crisis is indeed the laboratory of the future. But personally, I don’t think money can ever be apolitical, governments are as old and their influence as lasting as the social contract itself. In the same way, I believe in the strength of optimism, which is driving all the possibilities of cryptocurrency. After all, as Keynes said: “Investment is dedicating our intelligence in predicting what average opinion expects the average opinion to be”. If the blockchain behind Nakamoto’s algorithm keeps getting the mind of the global economy spot on, Cryptocurrency are more than capable of being here to stay. But where an error occurs all hell would break loose. Whatever happens, we shall live to witness.

 

MA Iliasu studies economics at Bayero University, Kano.

Related Topics:

Opinion

WARAKA: The Story of Kano Sexual Assault Referral Centre (SARC)

Published

20 hours ago

on

August 3, 2026

By

 

A Story by Nurse Ekwem Chinwendu Blessing (BNSC, RPHN, RM, RN)

I was out on my routine duty at Murtala Specialist Hospital for my ambulance service when I decided to take a walk to a centre I had heard about from Sir Muhammad Sunusi Specialist Hospital Accident and Emergency Unit. The centre is called WARAKA–SARC — ‘Waraka’ meaning ‘healing’ in the English language. It is housed in the same building with the Kano State Contributory Healthcare Management Agency (KSCHMA), a beautiful block within Murtala Specialist Hospital. The centre comprises three offices and two toilets. Inside, the offices are adorned with colourful posters of alphabets, numbers, GBV survivors support, pathway for initial care after sexual assaults and domestic animals and pets, creating a quiet and therapeutic atmosphere. The staff are warm and friendly.

The centre was sponsored by non-governmental organisation’s (NGOs) and championed by four ministries in the state: the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Women Affairs, the Ministry of Justice, and the State Police Force. Unfortunately, the NGOs have since pulled out. WARAKA–SARC attends to cases of sexual assault and gender-based violence for both males and females. I was informed that between 7 and 12 September 2015, training was conducted for doctors, nurses, and counsellors on the management of such cases. Due to the high rate of reported incidents, the NGOs and the four aforementioned ministries pushed for the official opening of the centre.

During my visit, I met several members of staff: a nurse nearing retirement, counsellors, a receptionist, and a volunteer who also serves as the Monitoring and Evaluation Officer. She conducts serological tests such as pregnancy test (serum), HIV, HBsAg, HCV, and VDRL. I had expected to see a doctor trained to assist with forensic examinations, but none was present. I was told that doctors had indeed been trained to provide evidence-based care to clients; however, due to the high demand for medical personnel, they were redeployed to other hospitals and units. Due to that, When a client presents — whether as a case of domestic violence or assault — they are referred to the Gynaecology Emergency Unit, the Gynaecology Ward, the Accident and Emergency Unit, or the Paediatric Unit, depending on the client’s age and the nature of the assault. Following examination, the client returns to WARAKA–SARC for further management, including counselling and serology. On average, the centre sees about fifty clients per week.

Advert

Notwithstanding these challenges, this is the only functioning centre in the state that attends to cases of sexual assault and gender-based violence. I noted that all services rendered to clients are free of charge, and the centre also provides continuous follow-up care.

Based on my observation, WARAKA–SARC is a sensitive and vital centre. I therefore suggest the following measures to improve the care and services provided to clients:

· The deployment of medical personnel — including doctors, nurses, and counselling psychologists — to the centre.

· The four ministries should consistently include the centre in their annual budgets.

· Continuous engagement of staff through training, rural outreach programmes, community sensitisation, and the provision of incentives.

· NGOs should resume and sustain their collaboration with the centre.

· Proper referral pathways for clients to the centre must be established and maintained.

· The Ministry of Justice should make it mandatory for all cases of sexual assault and gender-based violence to pass through WARAKA–SARC before trial. This will enhance the centre’s visibility among individuals and communities.

· Additional centres should be established in strategic local government areas to bring services closer to rural communities far from Kano town, thereby improving access and utilisation.

· Community enlightenment on the importance of the centre and the need to seek help freely when necessary.

· Religious and community leaders should partner with the centre to promote peace and encourage community members to utilise its services.

 

Speak out, get help — end the cycle of violence.

WARAKA SARC: Your path to healing and justice.

Stop GBV. Support survivors. Strengthen justice.

WARAKA SARC: Restoring dignity, rebuilding lives.

Supporting survivors with care, dignity, and compassion.

WARAKA SARC — A Safe Space for Healing.

 

WARAKA–SARC HOTLINES

0903 042 4123

0902 894 4933

SAY NO TO GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE

END VIOLENCE AGAINST CHILDREN

Continue Reading

Opinion

How Kano Digitized Land Turns N50m to N750m Monthly

Published

21 hours ago

on

August 3, 2026

By

 

– Abba Ka Cika Gwarzo…

By Abba Anwar

Land administration, safety and security of land documents are dancing gorgeously to the gallery, as the administration of His Excellency, Executive Governor of Kano State, Abba Kabir Yusuf digitalized and institutionalized land administration and ownership in the last three years.

Study tour to Kano Geographic Information System (KANGIS), by states like Abia, Kaduna, Jigawa, Adamawa, among others is a clear testimony that Kano is making headway with excellent innovations in land administration and management. Analog to digital development.

Before now, KANGIS was a small unit /department under the state Ministry of Land and Physical Planning. But when Governor Yusuf came on board, the agency turned into full-fledged and autonomous agency with the establishment Law. Normal legislative procedures were followed. And now an independent agency. This makes seamless operations possible. With clear mandate and global taste.

Billions of Naira injected in overhauling and modernizing the agency, were recovered within six months of becoming an autonomous agency. With full Information Communication Technology (ICT) infrastructure which turned the face of the agency via digital and GIS infrastructures, pave the way for that.

Employing GIS enterprise, that is modernizing land administration, beginning from land application to the level of acquiring Certificate of Occupancy (C of O) has now become a seamless operation. Where slow operation fades away.

For Internally Generated Revenue (IGR) the agency was generating a maximum of Fifty Million Naira (N50m) monthly. With the new Law in place and dedicated leadership, from His Excellency down to the Director General of the agency, Dr Dalhatu Aliyu Sani, and dedicated staff, KANGIS can now boost of generating a maximum of up to Seven Hundred and Fifty Million Naira (N750m) monthly.

Racketeering of land documents by touts and weak minded internal elements, has significantly minimized. A system has now been in place for a land applicant to monitor the movement and progress of his or her application from the comfort of one’s room.

Advert

There is an improved manpower, who are always undergoing training and retraining. To cope with the global best practice. With this and the digitalization of the agency, corruption is being reduced to minimal level in the administration and management of land. So also laziness from the part of the staff, unproductive posture, double allocation and insecured process for land ownership are all shelved aside.

Under the wisdom of His Excellency, the Governor, the agency, KANGIS, works hand in hand with the state ministry for land and physical planning. Unlike in some other states, where such agencies wall out ministries of land. Not only maintaining the two institutions, in Kano, both the agency and the ministry work harmoniously in rancour-free atmosphere.

Though land ministry is the mother ministry, but rivalry between them is significantly at the lowest level. It may interest one to know that all payments of the ministry are paid through KANGIS.

The Director General of KANGIS Dr Sani is a renown scholar of geographic information system of global repute, who was invited by Governor Yusuf from far away Turkey, to come and serve his state. Without hesitation, Dr Sani responded positively to His Excellency’s request. Here he is, Dr Sani brought many strategies and innovations to KANGIS. The political will of the Governor helps much in this development. That has eluded the agency since its creation in 2012.

Understanding the genuine political will and commitment of the Governor towards the spirit development of the agency, the good working relationship between all the political appointees and staff of the agency and the mother ministry, is strengthening day in day out. They all understand what team work is to the development of the state.

Ranging from the Commissioner for Land and Physical Planning, Abudujjabar Muhammad Umar, Adviser to the Governor on Land Matters, Hadiza Gadanya, Director General of KANGIS, Dr Dalhatu Aliyu Sani, Senior Special Assistant to the Governor on Land Matters, Alhaji Ahmad down to the Senior Special Reporter Nanu Kankarofi, all believe and understand what team work is and what Governor Yusuf wants in reshaping land administration, control and ownership in the state. Kudos to them all.

Another important picture of Governor’s genuine love for a new Kano is his non-interference in KANGIS’s operations and technical decisions. Being an autonomous with competent hand as the Director General, Governor Yusuf believes he puts a square peg in a square hole. At KANGIS and the mother ministry, modernization with global touch is quite visible. It was this visibility, I guessed, that prompted other states to come to Kano and start shopping for ingenious land administration.

I can still remember vividly clear, when the immediate past Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Ahmad Dangiwa visited KANGIS sometime back, he informed the DG that when he returned back to Abuja, he would inform President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, to kindly urge other states of the federation to come to Kano and visit KANGIS for them to replicate Kano model of land administration. I don’t know if that really happened.

With the full operation and commitment of KANGIS and Land Ministry, Kano Master Plan of over 30 years is now being undusted and ready to be revisited word by word. This is possible as a result of Governor Yusuf’s political will and commitment.

Anwar writes from Kano
Monday, 3rd August, 2026

Continue Reading

Opinion

Borders, Visas and the Beautiful Game: How U.S. Immigration Policies Shaped Global Perceptions During the 2026 FIFA World Cup

Published

1 day ago

on

August 3, 2026

By

 

Solomon Emmanuel olamilekan

As the United States welcomed millions of football fans for the 2026 FIFA World Cup, another story unfolded beyond the stadiums. Visa restrictions, border policies, and immigration procedures became central to international discussions, raising questions about whether America’s commitment to security aligned with its image as a nation of openness and inclusivity.

The FIFA World Cup has always represented more than football. Every four years, it brings together people from different cultures, languages, and backgrounds in a celebration of unity through sport. For the United States, co-hosting the 2026 FIFA World Cup alongside Canada and Mexico was an opportunity to reinforce its image as a nation built on diversity, openness, and international cooperation. Yet as millions of supporters prepared to travel, immigration policies and visa restrictions became almost as widely discussed as the matches themselves.

Long before the opening whistle, the global conversation had shifted beyond tactics, team selections, and stadium preparations. Instead, many fans found themselves navigating visa interviews, lengthy processing periods, and uncertainty over whether they would be allowed to enter the United States. The result was a tournament that not only showcased world-class football but also reignited debates about borders, mobility, and the balance between national security and international hospitality.

Beyond the sporting spectacle, the 2026 FIFA World Cup also became a platform for public diplomacy and nation branding. Major sporting events provide host nations with opportunities to communicate their values, strengthen international relationships, and project a positive national image. Consequently, immigration procedures, border experiences, and visa accessibility became part of the broader story through which global audiences evaluated the United States as a host nation.

Visa Policies Put Fans in the Spotlight

According to FIFA, purchasing a World Cup ticket did not automatically grant entry into any of the host countries. The governing body repeatedly advised supporters to apply for visas well in advance, reminding fans that immigration decisions remained the responsibility of each host government. For thousands of supporters from countries requiring U.S. visas, securing a match ticket was only the beginning of the journey.

The Associated Press (AP) reported that, unlike several previous World Cups where host nations introduced simplified entry systems for accredited visitors and supporters, the United States largely maintained its standard immigration procedures. As a result, many fans from Africa, the Middle East, and parts of Asia encountered significant administrative hurdles before they could even think about entering a stadium. The report noted that supporters from countries such as Iraq, Ghana, Haiti, and several African nations faced long visa waiting periods, high refusal rates, and uncertainty despite holding legitimate World Cup tickets.

For African supporters, the challenge was particularly significant. Football occupies a unique place across the continent, where fans are renowned for bringing colour, music, and unmatched enthusiasm to every World Cup. During the tournament preparations, the U.S. government proposed visa bond requirements ranging from $5,000 to $15,000 for certain travellers. The proposal generated widespread concern before eligible FIFA World Cup ticket holders were later exempted. Despite this exemption, visa appointment delays, lengthy processing times, and existing immigration procedures continued to present significant obstacles. Similarly, The Guardian noted that the controversy highlighted broader inequalities in global mobility, with many observers arguing that such restrictions appeared inconsistent with FIFA’s message that football should be accessible to everyone regardless of nationality.

Beyond the Fans: Journalists and Participants Face Challenges

The debate over U.S. immigration policies did not end with football supporters. Journalists, tournament participants, and prominent football personalities also found themselves caught in the complexities of the American immigration system. As a result, discussions about border policies increasingly became part of the World Cup narrative, drawing international attention to how the United States balanced security with its role as host of the world’s biggest sporting event.

Advert

One of the most widely reported incidents involved “Mama Radio,” the celebrated Democratic Republic of Congo superfan known for travelling across the world to support African teams. Reuters reported that she was denied a U.S. visa despite her long history of attending international football tournaments, preventing her from supporting her team at the World Cup. The story attracted global attention because it illustrated how even well-known football ambassadors could struggle to navigate immigration procedures. For many observers, her absence symbolised the barriers faced by ordinary supporters from developing countries.

The Associated Press also reported concerns that lengthy visa processing times could affect accredited journalists travelling from some countries. Although FIFA accreditation grants access to matches and official events, it does not replace national immigration laws. Consequently, journalists were still required to satisfy U.S. visa requirements before entering the country, prompting discussions about equal access to one of the world’s largest sporting events.

FIFA consistently reminded supporters that while it could facilitate information and coordinate with host governments, immigration decisions ultimately remained the responsibility of each sovereign nation. Meanwhile, U.S. officials maintained that the country’s immigration measures were designed to protect national security while ensuring the safe hosting of millions of international visitors. Migration scholars also observed that mega sporting events increasingly expose the tension between border security and global mobility, with visa policies often becoming symbols of a nation’s openness to the world. For many travelling supporters, however, the experience extended beyond football, as months of visa applications, embassy appointments, and travel uncertainty became an integral part of their World Cup journey.

Security or Inclusivity?

As the tournament progressed, international media framed the immigration debate in different ways. BBC Sport highlighted the practical challenges experienced by supporters from countries facing lengthy visa processing times. Reuters focused on personal stories that illustrated the human impact of visa denials, while The Guardian questioned whether restrictive immigration procedures aligned with FIFA’s vision of football as a game that unites the world. Together, these reports shaped global perceptions of the United States, portraying immigration policy as an important part of the World Cup story.

From a strategic communication perspective, immigration procedures became part of America’s international brand narrative, shaping perceptions as much as the tournament itself. Rather than focusing exclusively on football, international media increasingly framed the visitor experience, visa accessibility, and border policies as indicators of America’s openness and inclusivity. This demonstrates how government policies can influence nation branding and public diplomacy, especially during globally televised events that attract billions of viewers.

Supporters of the U.S. government’s approach argued that hosting a global sporting event should not require compromising national security. Every sovereign nation, they maintained, has the responsibility to regulate entry into its territory and protect both citizens and visitors. Others contended that the measures created unnecessary barriers that contrasted with America’s image as a welcoming nation built on immigration and cultural diversity.

More Than a Football Tournament

The immigration debate surrounding the 2026 FIFA World Cup ultimately became a test of America’s global image. While the United States successfully staged one of the biggest sporting events in history, conversations about visas and border access became an enduring part of its legacy.

The tournament demonstrated that global sporting events are judged by more than the quality of football on the pitch. They also influence how host nations are perceived by the international community. Football succeeded in bringing the world together, but immigration policies influenced who could fully participate in that celebration.

From a communication and media studies perspective, the 2026 FIFA World Cup demonstrated that successful event hosting extends beyond logistics and sporting excellence. Public diplomacy is shaped not only by ceremonies and stadiums but also by the experiences visitors have before they arrive. Every visa approval, border interaction, and media report contributes to the construction of a nation’s international reputation. In this sense, immigration policy became a communication tool that influenced how the United States was perceived throughout the tournament.

As future nations prepare to host international sporting events, the lesson is clear: hospitality extends beyond world-class stadiums and efficient organisation. It is also reflected in how accessible a country is to the people who wish to experience its culture, support their teams, and celebrate the universal language of football. In the end, the 2026 FIFA World Cup reminded the world that while football has the power to unite nations, border policies can shape who gets to be part of that shared experience.

 

Solomon Emmanuel olamilekan
Department of development and Strategic communication
University of Abuja

Continue Reading

Trending