The 2026 FIFA World Cup is the largest football tournament ever staged, spanning 48 teams, 104 matches and three host nations. For James Bannister, Head of Global War and Terrorism at Lockton, its significance extends far beyond sport.
Many businesses operating around the tournament are underestimating their exposure to civil unrest, security threats and related liabilities, leaving balance sheet risks they may not fully understand until an incident occurs.
"The scale and complexity of the 2026 World Cup is unprecedented," Bannister said. "What also feels different is the geopolitical backdrop."
Heightened political tensions, social polarisation and ongoing international conflicts have created a risk environment that extends well beyond FIFA, host cities and stadium operators.
The risk environment was evident before the tournament had formally settled into its rhythm.
Violent protests occurred near the Azteca Stadium ahead of Mexico's opening fixture against South Africa, while social tensions in Mexico City threatened access to major fan celebration sites. Cartel-related unrest in Guadalajara following the killing of a prominent organised crime leader earlier this year added further complexity across Mexican host cities.
Intelligence briefings from US officials and FIFA, reported by Reuters in March 2026, also highlighted concerns around extremist attacks targeting matches, fan events or transport infrastructure amid wider tensions linked to immigration policy and international conflicts. The United States' role as a host nation adds a distinct dimension to the risk landscape.
"No matter how you look at it, the United States has been front and centre in world politics and economics over the past 12 months," Bannister said.
"When you've got nations from all around the world being hosted by the US, automatically there's a wider consideration about the political backdrop and the security risk that presents."
Large international sporting events also provide a highly visible platform for groups seeking to amplify political messages, a dynamic Bannister says has been fundamentally altered by social media.
"Mobilising people is so much easier with social media because you can unite behind a common purpose or cause and target events such as the World Cup," he said. "It's not just the fixtures being held - it's where the teams are staying, how the teams move around, how the news is broadcast."
The consequences can be rapid and localised. Widespread unrest following the PSG-Arsenal Champions League final earlier this year illustrated how quickly sporting events can spill into broader disruption.
The industry's blind spot is not a lack of awareness about geopolitical risk. It is the assumption that the consequences will fall elsewhere.
"Many businesses assume the primary risk sits with the event organiser or venue," Bannister said.
"In reality, hotels, hospitality providers, sponsors, suppliers, broadcasters and local businesses can all be exposed to disruption, liability and financial loss."
The misconception, he argued, stems from an overly narrow focus on physical damage. In many cases, the more significant losses arise from business interruption, contractual obligations, cyber incidents and reputational harm.
Particularly vulnerable are so-called soft targets - fan zones, transport hubs and hospitality venues where large crowds gather outside stadium perimeters. Active assailant attacks present a specific challenge because perpetrators are often unknown to law enforcement before an incident occurs.
"Such events are difficult to mitigate as often the individuals perpetrating these attacks remain unknown to law enforcement," Bannister said.
"Lost income following enforced shutdowns and ensuing trading disruption are clear. Business interruption exposures, plus third-party liability lawsuits and corresponding defence costs, present further balance sheet liabilities."
Many organisations, he added, still treat geopolitical risk as a background issue rather than a core business concern.
Liability exposure is another area many organisations underestimate.
"If an event occurs, could they be named in a lawsuit? Could they be deemed to be responsible?" Bannister said. "They don't necessarily need to be negligent to have a financial impact on their organisation."
Defence costs provide the clearest illustration. Organisations may incur substantial legal expenses simply because they are named in proceedings connected to an incident, regardless of whether liability is ultimately established.
Bannister said he had seen defence costs run into the millions for businesses drawn into litigation following security-related events.
The scale of the World Cup magnifies that exposure. Tens of millions of people will attend matches, fan events and associated activities across three countries over six weeks, creating a complex web of operational and legal risks for businesses participating in the tournament economy.
"There's much more of a focus now for businesses to look at what policies are currently in place, what's covered and what may still be a balance sheet exposure," he said.
The challenge becomes more complex when multiple risks interact. A cyber incident can compromise security systems. A political demonstration can disrupt operations. Severe weather can hamper emergency responses. Increasingly, organisations face interconnected threats that can trigger one another.
As a result, resilience planning has become "significantly more sophisticated and multidisciplinary" than it was a decade ago, Bannister said.
The implication for brokers advising clients with sponsorship arrangements, hospitality programmes, supply-chain relationships or corporate travel exposure linked to the tournament is straightforward. The relevant risks do not begin and end at the stadium gate.
With several weeks of fixtures still to be played and politically sensitive match-ups ahead, the risk environment continues to evolve. The businesses most exposed may be those that have yet to recognise they are exposed at all.
