Zohran Mamdani’s comments about soccer, immigration, and enforcement meet historical facts that tell a different story, tracing modern soccer to 19th century England while acknowledging older ball games across cultures and noting the political framing around the World Cup in 2026.

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani has weighed in on the 2026 FIFA World Cup and vowed to make tickets affordable for New Yorkers at the MetLife Stadium match. With the United States, Canada, and Mexico set to host the tournament, city leaders are under pressure to manage fan access and public safety. That attention brings scrutiny not only to logistics but also to the rhetoric officials use when speaking about immigration and enforcement.

Critics argue Mamdani pushed a narrative that implies soccer could not thrive in America without immigrants, tying the sport to a political stance about enforcement and community fear. He wrote on X, “We will not allow ICE or anyone else to sow fear in our communities — especially at this moment. As the world comes to our city, we will stand proudly with our immigrant neighbors and reject these attacks for what they are: an attempt to divide us.” That post has become a focal point for debate over language and intent.

And now he’s pretending that soccer wouldn’t exist without immigrants.

https://x.com/NYCMayor/status/2064042490668204109

There is a clear historical record for the modern game most people call soccer. The Football Association in England was formed on October 26, 1863, and that organization codified rules that separated association football from rugby. Ebenezer Morley is often credited as the ‘Father of Football’ for his role in drafting those rules and shaping the sport that spread globally after the mid 19th century.

The first official match played under the new association rules occurred on December 19, 1863, marking the formal start of the modern game. Before and after that point, the sport evolved through clubs, schools, and international play, eventually reaching the United States and becoming part of the global football family. The 2026 World Cup will be the biggest stage yet on American soil, but the sport’s modern rules and structure trace back to England’s mid 1800s reforms.

That is not to ignore ancient and traditional ball games. Versions of football-like games existed in China, in Ancient Greece and Rome, and in parts of Central America for centuries. Those contests varied in rules, objectives, and cultural meaning, but they do show humans have been kicking balls and staging contests for a very long time.

For anyone willing to check the record, the history is straightforward. Open a history book and the timeline becomes obvious: ancient ball games, a formalization of rules in 1863, and then the sport’s global expansion through the late 19th and 20th centuries. Reducing that chain to a single modern political talking point flattens the facts.

Political positioning around immigration and law enforcement colors how some officials talk about major events. Some of Mamdani’s language frames ICE and enforcement as antagonists trying to frighten communities, which resonates with his political base. Others see a responsibility to enforce immigration law and to protect public order while hosting a global competition that draws diverse crowds.

He thinks he does, though.

New Yorkers elected Mamdani and he carries the authority and the criticism that comes with the job. The language leaders use matters because it shapes how people feel about security, inclusion, and the rule of law when millions of visitors arrive for an international event. Facts about the game’s origins do not erase the role immigrants have played in popularizing soccer in the U.S., but they do matter when a public official claims the sport’s existence depends on a single political position.

City officials should balance hospitality with enforcement and not conflate historical origins with present-day politics. The World Cup is a global event that requires practical planning and honest public discussion, not selective history. Leaders who want to build consensus will benefit from sticking to plain facts and avoiding rhetoric that oversimplifies either history or policy.