Is World Cup hosting 'curse' real pattern or just media hype?

Every four years, the FIFA World Cup lands in a new country and with it comes an almost inevitable wave of controversy.

From human rights criticisms and logistical nightmares to spiraling costs and political backlash, hosting the world’s most-watched sporting event can feel like a poisoned chalice.

But is this so-called "curse" a genuine pattern, or is it a myth amplified by media scrutiny and social media hysteria?

History suggests it is a complex mixture of both. Hosting exposes real systemic flaws, yet the narrative of a supernatural curse often overshadows the nuance.

Early controversies

Controversy has been baked into the World Cup from its very first edition.

Uruguay’s inaugural tournament in 1930 was a logistical disaster waiting to happen.

Teams traveled by boat across the Atlantic and some European squads never made it because the journey was too expensive or complicated.

Egypt, for example, famously missed the boat that was supposed to pick them up and were left behind, unable to participate.

Only four European teams eventually competed, underscoring how infrastructure and travel hurdles have been a central challenge for hosts since day one.

Italy’s 1934 edition under Benito Mussolini turned football into fascist propaganda, with choreographed crowds and militarized security, drawing criticism for normalizing authoritarian rule.

By 1978, Argentina’s military junta used the World Cup to whitewash its Dirty War atrocities, detaining thousands of dissidents during the tournament.

These early controversies demonstrate that backlash has always been embedded in the event, often driven by politics rather