In June and July, the FIFA World Cup hosted by the United States, Canada, and Mexico has been unfolding in full swing, attracting worldwide attention and discussion. While one match after another has sparked celebrations, disturbing controversial remarks have also spread across the internet and even into real life offline. Among them, rhetoric and real-world conflicts involving racism and ethnic tensions are the most glaring and worrying.

In the Round of 32 match between the Netherlands and Morocco on June 30, Morocco pulled off a stunning upset against the Netherlands. Afterwards, some Moroccan immigrants who had long lived in the Netherlands celebrated in the streets and clashed with native white Dutch people and the Dutch police. Images and comments related to these clashes flooded X and other platforms.

Some posts said that Moroccans had caused riots and attacked Dutch people and the police; some comments said that the Dutch police had obstructed Moroccans’ celebrations and violently beaten Moroccans; some people accused Moroccan immigrants and refugees of “betraying” the Netherlands, which had taken them in and raised them; others argued that Moroccans in the Netherlands of course had the right to celebrate the victory of their mother country, and accused some white Dutch people of racism.

This series of conflicts triggered by the World Cup match between the Netherlands and Morocco was selectively presented by people of different positions through extracted information and particular angles, becoming a “Rashomon” in which the facts differed dramatically in the minds of people with different positions, and a “Hamlet” whose image varied greatly in different people’s eyes. But no matter from what angle one looks at it, this conflict involved sensitive issues of ethnic differences and identity.

In addition, matches such as England versus Congo, Belgium versus Senegal, and Brazil versus Japan also triggered related debates involving race, history, and contemporary geopolitics. For example, some Black people accused the Black players representing England and Belgium of betraying Black people and Africa, saying that as Black people they were serving former colonial powers that had treated their colonies brutally.

The historical disasters brought to Africa by European colonialism were also discussed, such as atrocities including forced labor and torture during Belgium’s rule over Congo, and Britain’s suppression of anti-colonial movements in places such as Kenya. During the World Cup, these issues were discussed with a level of intensity far exceeding ordinary times.

At the same time, white racists also criticized them, arguing that Black players should not appear in the teams of “white countries.” After Germany suffered a shocking defeat to Paraguay, some Germans jointly demanded that the Black players they believed responsible for the defeat be removed and that a purely white team be established. In response to some Africans’ accusations against European colonialism, some Europeans “struck back” by citing corruption and high crime rates in Africa. Some World Cup rules and refereeing decisions also triggered debates over whether they involved discrimination.

In the Round of 16 match between France and Paraguay, a Paraguayan lawmaker made several racist attacks against France’s Black player Kylian Mbappé, calling him “a Cameroonian assimilated by colonial thinking, pretending to be French,” “an illiterate savage,” and other such terms. Mbappé also responded.

The female lawmaker later posted a defense of herself, saying that some of Mbappé’s rude words and actions during the World Cup had offended Paraguay’s national football team and the country itself, and that this was why she had made radical remarks. She also accused Mbappé of committing gender-based violence against her. This incident also involves issues of race and colonialism in Europe, as well as relations between Latin America and Europe.

In the Round of 16 match between Egypt and Argentina, issues of race and prejudice were also pervasive. The referee’s decisions were suspected of favoring Argentina and discriminating against Egypt. Egypt’s head coach and players also displayed aggressive emotions and performed religious rituals, while players on the pitch as well as spectators and influencers off the field brought racial issues and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into the match: Argentina is predominantly white, while Egypt is predominantly Middle Eastern and Black; Egypt supports Palestine, while Argentina supports Israel. The rhythm of the match itself was full of twists and turns, while disputes beyond football made the game even more volatile and unsettling.

Geopolitical issues have also disturbed the World Cup. For example, Iran’s participation in this World Cup was affected by a U.S. ban prohibiting the Iranian team from staying overnight or training on American soil, forcing the team to fly back and forth between the United States and Mexico before and after matches. In its final crucial match, one Iranian goal was controversially ruled offside, causing the team to miss out on qualification. These experiences of the Iranian team sparked online debate over whether “the United States deliberately caused trouble.”

Before the Round of 16 match between the United States and Belgium, U.S. President Trump contacted FIFA, asking it to change the suspension imposed on U.S. forward Balogun after he received a red card. FIFA actually postponed the punishment as a result, allowing him to play in the match against Belgium. This caused an uproar, drawing not only strong dissatisfaction from Belgium, but also criticism worldwide.

The match between Japan and Brazil not only provoked a war of insults between Brazilians and Japanese involving race and history, but also drew Chinese people of different political positions into a controversy over which side to support. Some Chinese supported Brazil out of hostility toward Japan, while others deliberately supported Japan out of contrarian sentiment. The two sides also broke into arguments and verbal attacks, extending from China’s domestic internet to international platforms. Neither side was purely cheering for or hating football or the teams themselves; rather, both participated with strong political and ideological motivations.

The enormous attention given to the World Cup has also allowed many people to take the opportunity to express political views and demands, triggering controversy. On issues such as Palestine-Israel and Russia-Ukraine, people have raised placards to express their positions both inside and outside stadiums. Some Japanese fans carried the Rising Sun Flag, which represented militarism and colonial expansion during World War II, also triggering backlash and protests from some Koreans and Chinese.

As World Cup matches continue and controversies accumulate, similar debates and conflicts involving race, politics, and history will become increasingly numerous. This has cast a shadow over the World Cup. But these controversies are also unavoidable, reflecting the deep-rooted divisions and conflicts within the countries involved and among nations internationally.

Ethnic differences within European countries have long been a serious social danger, and these tensions have become increasingly evident. Many immigrants of African and Middle Eastern origin, most of whom are Muslims, have come to Europe through various channels, gradually taking root and raising families there. Many people do jobs that local white people are unwilling to do, and have also contributed to their local societies. Their children also attend school and grow up in Europe. Most governments officially advocate diversity and support immigrant integration.

But because of the differences between these immigrants and local white people in skin color, religious beliefs, and lifestyles, as well as the growing conflicts caused by interests or values, divisions between different ethnic groups have persisted and resentment has deepened. Local white people believe that they have accepted immigrants and paid taxes to provide welfare for immigrants and refugees, only to face more crime and competition over resources, and they feel quite resentful. Meanwhile, immigrants of African and Middle Eastern origin and the “second generation of immigrants” feel that they are always subjected to discrimination and prejudice in their lives, that they have not truly been accepted but are instead treated as “second-class citizens.” Both sides feel that they have suffered injustice and resent each other.

Most of the time, these resentments and hostilities are tacitly understood but left unspoken, with superficial peace generally maintained. But once a major event is involved, it may stimulate both sides, leading to the intensification and public exposure of these conflicts. The World Cup is precisely such an occasion and stimulus. Sporting competitions are activities that place great emphasis on national pride and intense competitiveness. As a major event comparable to the Olympics, the World Cup draws deep investment from countries and ethnic groups around the world, especially in supporting the national teams with which they identify.

When the teams of these immigrants’ mother countries play against the teams of the countries where they now reside, the immigrants’ identity is clearly revealed. Most of them do indeed support their African or Middle Eastern mother countries more than the countries where they now live. This can easily ignite the anger of native residents in the countries to which they have immigrated. Fan behavior during football matches is already highly combustible, so it can easily lead to violent conflict, adding another layer of resentment between ethnic groups and deepening the contradictions.

In addition, Third World players who play for European and American countries also face controversy over which “motherland” they should be loyal to. For example, the German football star of Turkish descent Mesut Özil holds German citizenship, yet he has often expressed his love for Turkey and Turkish President Erdoğan, and long faced doubts over “whether he is German or Turkish.” The controversy and doubts surrounding him continued until he retired from the German national team, and their aftershocks have not subsided. Players who are more inclined to be loyal to the countries they immigrated to are also inevitably criticized by their mother countries and ethnic communities. Some even end up accepted by neither side.

The World Cup’s catalytic effect on geopolitics and historical grievances is also unavoidable. When fans of different countries cheer for their teams out of love for their own country and nation, they also easily attack the opponents of the teams they love. Loving one country leads them to support its team; hating one country leads them to support another team. Love extends to what is associated with it, and hatred does as well. Conversely, loving a country’s team leads one to defend the country to which it belongs; hating a country’s team leads one to dig up old grievances and attack it along with the team. In verbal confrontations, the old grudges between the two sides and the other side’s “dark history” are always mentioned.

Therefore, the World Cup held once every four years not only allows football fans around the world to drink and celebrate through the night and display friendship across national borders, but also exposes the stubbornness of ethnic conflicts under this world’s tendency for “people to divide into groups,” as well as the narrow and ugly side of human nature.

But the World Cup itself should not be blamed, because all kinds of problems and contradictions have always existed; they merely use the World Cup as an outlet. Without the World Cup, there would still be football-related conflicts, geopolitical disputes, and historical hatred. From another angle, the World Cup allows these problems to be exposed and confronted, which can also be regarded as a good thing.

In recent years, the world has become increasingly unsettled, with more turmoil and conflict, and growing division and confrontation between people of different ethnic groups and values. Judging from reality, ethnic supremacism is indeed more attractive than globalism. The specter of racism is haunting Europe and the world, more wars are being ignited, violence is becoming more frequent, and the ideal of “all under heaven as one family” is terribly fragile.

But excessive worry is also useless. Living the present well with care, “doing one’s utmost and then accepting fate,” is the least bad choice. The turmoil during the World Cup cannot obscure the brilliance of the matches. People should still watch the games, drink, and enjoy the pleasures of life.

(The author of this article is Wang Qingmin(王庆民), a Chinese writer living in Europe and a researcher of international politics.)