Sideline Conversations: Security, Visas & Fan Mobility

MARLON HILL: Welcome back again. This is Attorney Marlon Hill, Clutch, coming to you live from the beautiful Magic City of Miami, Florida, the 305, where it's about 75 degrees, sparkling blue skies. I wonder what the weather is like in Toronto, home of the World Series finalist, the Blue Jays. Maple, what's the weather on the 6?

AARIJ S. WASTI: Listen, Marlon, when you make the World Series, and you say we're the finalists, we are going to be champions. Let's be clear. It is always sunny. It is always warm, and the Maple is ready to bring it home.

MARLON HILL: Listen, man, we could not script it any more, Canada versus the United States, Toronto versus Los Angeles. J.C., you guys have a team you want to throw into the mix?

JUAN CARLOS PARTIDA: We're going to be politically correct, so may the best one win.

AARIJ S. WASTI: I know J.C.'s heart is with us, bro. I know. I know.

MARLON HILL: Oh, man. Well, listen, welcome back again to-- this is episode number 3. It's great to be back with you. We are here on the sidelines discussing the business and legal affairs of the upcoming FIFA World Cup, the historic FIFA World Cup. Less than 230 plus days to the summer of 2026. 28 teams, Maple that have qualified for the World Cup and 20 teams to go before the historic draw at the Kennedy Center on December the 5th. But there's lots of news on the headlines, and we want to dig right into it. On the sideline, we are always watching the game, but sometimes, we also have to be critiquing the game.

So this episode on the sideline, we're going to be talking a little bit-- taking some news from the headlines, talking about, these conversations about the possibility of games being relocated? Maple, is that a real headline?

AARIJ S. WASTI: Look, I think, Clutch, if we can, let's just recap some of these headlines to put this into context. And the reason I want to do this-- and J.C., you'll be able to add to this list-- is I remember when I was in Brazil for the 2014 World Cup, the comms director said to us, obviously preparing for 2022 on the Qatari side, the news will follow you right through the final. So they will be lots of headlines because there are journalists that are dedicated just to this space. We know how many fans follow the World Cup and therefore the build up to the World Cup.

And so I think it's worth going through the list, and then separating the wheat from the chaff, so to speak, to be able to pinpoint what's real and what's not, what people should be paying attention to, and what they should be taking with a little bit of a grain of salt. But what have we seen in the last few weeks? Lots and lots of stuff around ticket pricing, both in the press and from fans. I think some criticism around the secondary markets, the FIFA resale charges. I mean, there was quite a pronounced statement by the New York mayoral candidate, Mamdani, around how the average New Yorker will not get to see a match at MetLife because of the current ticketing prices.

Spain has threatened to potentially boycott. That's the first time we've heard that word used in a while. We've heard a little bit about a 64-team proposal for the next World Cup by CONMEBOL. We touched upon that in the last episode a little bit. You've talked about the threat to move World Cup matches from cities like Seattle, San Francisco, Boston. These are massive, massive hole cities. And I think, we'll get into this a little bit now. But first of all, is this a move that can be made? And second of all, on what grounds? It'd be interesting to talk about that.

Iranian FA, including the coach, apparently, visa rejected for the final draw. I mean, that's the conversation around immigration and access, not just for fans, but for delegates is starting to pick up. And then finally, I always find blockchain and crypto interesting, but also headline around FIFA being investigated for its blockchain-based ticketing system in Switzerland. So I don't know even where to begin, and J.C., I don't know if you have to add--

MARLON HILL: Listen--

AARIJ S. WASTI: --but it is a long list of headlines just from the last 2 weeks.

MARLON HILL: --there's lots of appetizing headlines. J.C. definitely we want to bring you in on this conversation. You deal with clients who are pursuing different deals, and many times have the contractual parties that are-- they're exigent circumstances that interject themselves to the different deals. What would you be looking when you look at the relationship between FIFA and the host cities and these host city agreements, what could overturn these agreements that they have with each other, these institutions, large institutions like, FIFA, along with the Football Federations of Mexico, Canada, and the US to be in these 16 host cities? What are you looking for in these, basically, global intergovernmental, interinstitutional agreements, which are massive contracts between these organizations. What could overturn them?

JUAN CARLOS PARTIDA: Well, I think first, we think we need to remember that the legal obligations binding FIFA and the host countries and cities form one of the most comprehensive international event contracts in the world of sports. So it's a massive legal body that needs to be observed both by FIFA but mostly by the host governments, host countries, host cities. While FIFA will retain exclusive ownership and commercial control of the tournament, the governments will assume the financial, legislative, and operational aspects and obligations of the event, including security.

So there is FIFA with the host country government agreement, but there are also agreements or auxiliary agreements with the host cities that will also have to comply with the obligations set forth by FIFA in, let's say, the overall country government. So there are a lot of requirements. Again, FIFA retains the commercial control of the tournament, and the government will assume the financial, legislative, operational, and also the security obligations. Now, can the host country suspend or cancel World Cup games in a specific venue? Well, I think the key principle is that FIFA retains absolute decision-making authority over match timing, suspension, and cancellation.

MARLON HILL: So would they give that power to the host government?

JUAN CARLOS PARTIDA: Well, there are certain cases where the government will or can cancel or change a venue, which is those international recognized emergency circumstances, like, first major, national security threats, or public order and safety. However, in all of the cases, the government intervention shall be subject to the coordination with FIFA. So at the end, even the host country may suspend World Cup matches at a specific venue in these extreme emergency cases. At the end, FIFA will retain all the authority to decide whether this can go on or not. Yes.

MARLON HILL: You know, Aarij, this sounds like a salsa dance, a tango dance. You pick the couples dancing, who makes the first step? Who can make the unilateral step, Aarij, It can be done unilaterally, or is it coordinated?

AARIJ S. WASTI: Let's take a look at a similar but different circumstance, underpinned by the same argument that the US is making in this case. And again, this is to separate the headlines from the reality, but also to drill down on what works and how it actually works. You'll remember that we talked about this in a previous episode, the alcohol ban, so to speak, ahead of the 2022 World Cup. It was literally 11 hours before kickoff in the first match.

Now, that was seen and written about in different quarters, as cultural, as political, as even commercial. The actual justification for that restriction was security. And again, going back to J.C.'s point, that host country agreement that is awarded once a country is appointed as a host, includes provisions, and without having seen the 2026 specific host contract. Standard in such contracts is a carve out, as J.C. said, for things that are only under the influence and control of the host government.

So if in Qatar's case, the host country felt that by fans having access to alcohol was a security risk, they had the discretion to make a security call and pull it. Now, FIFA, of course, had discussions thereafter. Would have taken a position, commercial, and otherwise, but ultimately, if the host country calls or makes a decision like this on security grounds, that's within its remit. So similarly here-- and again, headlines talk about politics. Let's put that aside.

Take a host city as an example, and maybe, we use Chicago since Chicago is not an actual host city. If the US federal government believes that the law and order situation in Chicago is not of the standard that is required to safely and securely host a football match or 6 or whatever, then I think, they do have, under the contract the right, to suspend matches in that city. They would then, under the working framework, of course, go to FIFA, tell them of their decision, and then find a solution. But to answer your question, can it be done? Sure.

MARLON HILL: Well, listen, we know that there's been discussions from the headlines whether or not games could be moved from Boston or from San Francisco, whether or not that's just bluster from the headlines or actual reality. It's very, very important. If you represented one of those cities, J.C., what would be one or two of your main arguments before the appropriate venue where you file that lawsuit, which will likely be federal district court or something? What would you-- after making millions and millions of dollars of investment in getting ready to host the largest sporting event in the world.

JUAN CARLOS PARTIDA: Well, there are expectations. And those expectations are based on legal obligations, and those legal obligations were met. And there has to be a case made where you request a significant showing or evidence that there is a need, there is an actual threat of security or civil unrest that warrants the change of venue. If that burden of proof is not met, then in my point of view, the agreements that were signed by the host city, the host government, the municipal government should stand. I think, it's a matter of trying to show that there is a real threat, a real problem, a real emergency, and not only something that is politically motivated, I think. So that's my--

AARIJ S. WASTI: Zayu, can I ask a question or challenge that? Look, I get it. There's an investment made by the cities. They obviously, would put forth a substantiated claim. But the host country agreement is governed under Swiss law. By the time you get around to making an assessment-- and again, remember, if the basis is security grounds, that in and of itself is not something you can challenge in the courts. So what I'm trying to say is you're right, you can challenge this in court, but by the time you get to that stage of an assessment being made, isn't it too late? Hasn't that ship sailed?

JUAN CARLOS PARTIDA: Yes, but I think, we have to first separate two things. First, if there is an actual threat once the German has initiated, has begun, and there is a bomb threat or something that is actually an emergency situation, then I mean, there's no question. You have to change the venue, but so much in advance like, the news we are hearing today. If this keeps happening, I am going to cancel the games at this venue.

I think that is when you can actually ask and show or request the showing of an actual emergency. If it's an emergency of 1, 2 days, 1 week, yes, I agree with you, but if there are threats today being made to pull those games from these venue from Boston, because there is-- I mean, it's apparent that is, I mean, nothing is going on in Boston or nothing is going on in other cities, but there's a threat, then I think there is something you can legally argue. I mean, this is just a threat.

MARLON HILL: Exactly, there are legitimate threats, and then there are political threats. The thought that we would want to insert politics into football is just way above me, because politics is football and football is politics. But we have 16 host cities, why would you pick one host city to move and to have a discussion about there being a public safety threat, when there may not necessarily be a public security threat in another city like Dallas or Vancouver or Miami, where we're also hosting games? So I think we've got to be very, very careful of that. But I think that, what would you say to urge? What would you say to the fan or to the business owner that's looking at these headlines and going, oh boy, here we go? Where can they make sense of reality versus bluster?

AARIJ S. WASTI: No, I think it's a fair question. And I think, look, part of this is just to continue to track the information that's publicly available. I think the reality to caveat the last point is, aside from there being a slight difference between a security situation and an emergency, because not all security situations are emergencies, the reality is that if you are to change or shift matches from one or more cities, those have to go somewhere else and that takes a little bit of planning.

And so I think, there is a bit of lead time, and so if such an event were to happen outside of an immediate emergency, then I think the stakeholders would know. But I think all issues. if you are a vendor or supplier partner, speak to the whole city, speak to the LLC, ensure that you have access in real time to real information. Hey, look, in all these whole cities, it's like, business is a community of business ventures. And I think, in each host cities, vendor, suppliers, service providers need to come together and continue to disseminate and share information as they get it so that everybody is armed.

MARLON HILL: All right. Let's dig into some of these agreements that we know exists. So when you have FIFA likely established a subsidiary for each host nation, and then the host nation, a FIFA subsidiary entered into separate host city agreements, what are some of the commitments that you anticipate that some of these host cities must make to deliver the goods to FIFA?

AARIJ S. WASTI: Yeah, look, I think, again, going back to Zayu's comment about the hierarchy, you've obviously got the competition side, which all falls within FIFA's remit, and then the balance of everything that's happening around the game from airport, airport services, transport, security, access to infrastructure, viewing facilities like FanFest. I mean, this is all then over to the host country. The host country will in part-- it'll be slightly different Canada, slightly different in Mexico, but it'll be delegated, so to speak, down through the state level and onto the municipal level.

That's why the LOCs were created to coordinate all of that. And so it's a partnership, and it's a large, large, long-term undertaking. And some of the nuances of that early on are, look, sure, you say, you're responsible for x, and we're responsible for y, but who's actually paying for this. And one of the fascinating aspects of this 16 city, 3-country model is that each city has a different funding model, in a sense.

They've all got different tax structures, some coffers are fuller than others. And so I remember in the early days some of the smaller cities were saying, hey, look, we can't deliver the same services as New York. We're a different-sized city. And so I think, hopefully by now, FIFA and the LOCs have worked through that to balance the need to provide a standardized service, but at a cost that is agreeable to all involved.

MARLON HILL: You know, J.C., worst-case scenario, a city is unable to deliver the goods from the host city agreement, do we have enough time to pivot to a new city because they're breaching the host city agreement? Can that happen?

JUAN CARLOS PARTIDA: Well, it should happen. If the whole city for some reason cannot do it, then there has to be someone that steps in, and this is one of the tasks that the federal government, the country organizing committee, will have to start working with FIFA to find out the right venue. Of course, it's not easy, but in countries like Mexico, the US, and Canada where we have professional stadiums in every city and not all the cities being host, I think, in this case, it wouldn't be that difficult, although, obviously, stadiums may not have all the checks of FIFA in advance. But I think that--

AARIJ S. WASTI: And what's interesting--

JUAN CARLOS PARTIDA: --it has to happen.

AARIJ S. WASTI: --I mean, let's be clear, it's not like, Canada, US, Mexico bid for 16 cities, and oh, by the way, we have some backups. That was never part of the discussion. And so you're right, there's no real preparedness for alternative venues beyond, perhaps the cities that hosted the Club World Cup last summer that aren't also hosting the World Cup, because FIFA has some familiarity, as does the host city.

MARLON HILL: I think operationally, they must have several backup plans. Florida, Orlando, Miami, Orlando is an easy pivot. Atlanta, Charlotte.

AARIJ S. WASTI: Marlon, you say easy pivot, but come on, if you think about this from a logistical, planning, security, I mean, these are massive pivots. Look, one thing we got to-- I mean, I always go back to the Copa America, hosted, what? Two years ago in Miami, in part, and you look at the final. You look at the scenes, I think it's fair to say that the city of Miami just wasn't expecting that crowd, that reaction to that final. That is after years of preparedness.

MARLON HILL: Well, that's debatable, because the federation that was responsible for Copa America was involved in those type of dynamics. But the bottom line point, Aarij, is that, given the size of this event, there has to be a pivot ready plan, has to be, because for emergency public safety services, this is the United States.

AARIJ S. WASTI: You'd hope. You'd hope. And look, obviously in the worst case, I think everybody involved will do everything they can because I think abandoning matches is not an-- I think we can agree that that's just not an option at a World Cup?

MARLON HILL: Yeah.

AARIJ S. WASTI: It takes away from the integrity, and that's a whole other thing. So you're right. Look, I'm sure that whilst there may not be a meticulous plan per city or backup for each city, I'm sure there is some level of contingency preparedness that if a match has to be moved, what's the checklist? What are we doing?

MARLON HILL: Well, speaking of preparedness, and speaking of a pivot, as we switch the sidelines to the other side of the field, certainly less than 230 plus days to go for the World Cup, folks have to start making plans to travel to Mexico and travel to Canada and travel to the United States. If you haven't started making plans yet for your visitor visa, or you haven't started making plans yet for staffing up, if you need additional skilled workers, unskilled workers, hopefully, you're making that plan, Aarij, what's the usual process for folks coming to Canada for games? Is it pretty similar to our visa waiver program where you get certain countries like Europe, Australia, Japan, South Africa, no visas necessary for less than 90 days? What is it like to travel to Canada?

AARIJ S. WASTI: Yeah, entry to Canada, very similar to what you would expect in most Western nations, the UK, the EU, the US, where there's a visa waiver program available for certain nationalities and everyone else requires a visa. I think fans have been aware for some time that number 1, you have to apply for visas in advance. Number 2, a Canadian visa is not a US visa. A US visa is not a Mexican visa. Those are three different processes.

And I think they're also aware of the general time parameters for visa applications, depending on where they're coming from. I know that in certain cases or certain embassies around the world, Canadian visas are taking more than a few months to process, in some cases up to 9 months, believe it or not, to get a interview for a US visa for non-Canadians in Toronto, it's a wait of up to a year.

And this information is all available because obviously, it's of no interest for embassies to hide this stuff, but when you log on, and you see processing times-- look, we live in a populated planet. people travel all the time. And I think for a tournament like this, potentially an unprecedented number of visitors to all 3 countries. And so yeah, to answer your question, look, if you're a fan and you're planning on doing this, you want to prepare now, and that's visas, flights, hotels.

MARLON HILL: What about you, Zayu? What's Mexico? How do I get to Mexico?

JUAN CARLOS PARTIDA: Yeah, it's very similar as Aarij was saying in our 3 countries, there's some countries that do not require a visa for tourism or business in Mexico, such as the US, Canada, Japan, UK, or the Schengen countries, and there are others that need visa. So one thing that everybody has to have is a valid and unexpired passport. Some nationalities, they don't like having passports, but passports is an obligation to travel to Mexico.

The usual stay is 180 days. So once you have a valid tourist visa, you can stay for 180 days. But as Aarij was saying, prepare yourselves. That would be my advice, to prepare yourselves to travel to Mexico. Find out whether in the Mexican consulate all over the world, whether you need a visa or not, and try to request that visa if needed before time.

One more thing that is very, very important, and this is something that is one of the most important things in this World Cup, is that there is no official World Cup fan visa. So the visa you obtain to travel to Mexico is not going to be the same as the visa you need to travel to Canada or the US. So that's something you need to be aware of.

MARLON HILL: And having a ticket is not sufficient and the only thing you need to apply for the visa. They're looking at everything else. So just because you have a ticket, doesn't guarantee you--

AARIJ S. WASTI: Which is slightly different to 2018 and 2022. But again, you're dealing with a different model. There's 3 countries hosting, not just one.

MARLON HILL: But it's very important for you to not really start that planning. If you are an employer, you definitely want to look at some of the visa categories that would be necessary for you to bring, whether it's sporting-related, performance-related or whether it's skill-related. Maybe it has to do with event logistics or concession or maybe, an entertainment, a cultural group. These visas take easily 90 to 120 days. You may want to pay for premium processing to get that going. MARLON HILL: You're basically behind the eight ball right now, and this is something that you really have to.

AARIJ S. WASTI: Marlon, can I ask you a question from a US perspective, since you asked us? Because you love to ask the questions, but listen, Clutch, it's a two-way street. J.C. and I, we can only take so much. So tell me, in all seriousness, you've got unprecedented number of African countries that have qualified and may still qualify for the World Cup, right? Democratic Republic of Congo still may make it. Egypt is in. Ghana is in. Ivory Coast is in. I think, Burkina Faso may make it. Cameroon has still got a little bit of a chance as Gabon.

Many of these countries are on the so-called US travel ban list, right? So what's your perspective now, both for fans and for the delegates that are coming in from these countries. Is it business as usual and you just work through the process, or is there a slightly different angle to take.

MARLON HILL: I don't speak for the United States or the government. The opinions that I express here on this program are that of Clutch and Clutch alone.

AARIJ S. WASTI: Yeah, and look, I'm not looking for political view. What I'm saying is, if you're from these countries, are you practically or pragmatically affected?

MARLON HILL: You definitely are going to be affected if you're a fan. If you're not an immediate relative, you're not an athlete, part of the team, there's a support staff, the coaches, the likelihood of you not being impacted is very, very, very, very low. So you want to look into that and to see. But mostly, for the countries that are on travel bans, athletes, coaches, support staff, immediate relatives, likely will get a special exception visa, but the rest of the folks from that country, they're going to be impacted for sure. Unless something changes politically.

AARIJ S. WASTI: And you say likely, but you're right, because look, we've already seen with the Iran delegation issues for the final draw. And I wonder whether FIFA will hopefully request all 3 host countries to facilitate the entry of fans in the interests of the tournament.

MARLON HILL: Listen man, FIFA has more member nations than the United Nations. I'm sure there's going to be some security council of FIFA that's going to be looking into making sure that the fans from these countries are able to enjoy this historic moment. We're going to see whether or not Infantino's diplomatic chops will come to bear on the Oval Office and other host nations. But listen, the headlines are the headlines. We are trying to through the facts here on the sidelines.

We hope that you can continue to join us. Drop us a comment. Drop us a question in our series here. If there's a topic that you want us to address or you think we're not addressing deep enough, we certainly want to hear your feedback here on the sideline. Over the next few weeks, we're going to be looking at the international window. We know that the country of Morocco, congratulations. Man, they are doing something right in Northern Africa in Morocco. Aarij, congratulations to FIFA on the 20--

AARIJ S. WASTI: I tell you, I think, for those of us in the football world and the three of us as jaguars, eagles, and moose, we love the sport. But look, I think Morocco's success is a victory for any country that has aspirations from a grassroots level. If you look at the investment with national pride, the investment in academies that the country of Morocco has made over the last 10, 15 years, they came fourth in Qatar, semi-finalists at a World Cup.

They won the bronze medal in Paris at 24. They won the Under 20 World Cup and they're hosting the 2030 World Cup. You can't tell me that there isn't an ambition to podium in 26 and 2030. I think this is a great story. I know we love Argentina. Everybody loves to see Messi and his boys win, but I think this is a victory for football.

MARLON HILL: This is definitely a story to keep an eye on. It looks like Aarij has made his pick already for the semifinals and maybe even the final. Keep your eyes on Morocco. They are definitely going to be making their stake for next summer here in the United States, Mexico, and Canada. Guys, thank you for tuning in here again on the Sideline Conversations. We appreciate all the comments and the positive feedback that we've been receiving. Look forward to seeing you for the next episode, 4, as we approach the international window for some more teams to make the final 48. Until then, see you next time.

AARIJ S. WASTI: Thanks, guys.

JUAN CARLOS PARTIDA: Bye bye.

AARIJ S. WASTI: Take care, Clutch. See you, Zayu.