FIFA’s World Cup Vaping Ban Exposes the Flaws in Global Nicotine Policy

As millions of football fans are travelling across North America for the 2026 FIFA World Cup, many are facing some of the strictest anti-smoking and anti-vaping rules ever imposed at a major sporting event. While tournament organisers present the restrictions as a public health measure, they are actually reflecting a growing, misguided global trend: treating smoking and smoke-free nicotine products as if they carry the same risks.

The tournament, which kicked off on June 11 across the United States, Canada and Mexico, has banned both smoking and vaping throughout official stadiums, fan festivals and surrounding controlled areas. Fans caught violating the rules could face removal from venues, fines, and even exclusion from future FIFA events.

Given the evidence showing substantial differences between combustible tobacco and smoke-free alternatives like vaping products, nicotine pouches, and heated tobacco devices, such motions are becoming all the more controversial.

And while for a lot of nicotine users, these regulations might feel like a hassle. But they also point to a larger issue in policy around the globe: what occurs when there’s still a demand for nicotine while access to safer products becomes limited?

Public health authorities have spent decades educating the public about the dangers of secondhand smoke. Those concerns are well-founded. Cigarette smoke contains thousands of chemicals generated through combustion, many of which are known to contribute to cardiovascular disease, cancer and respiratory illness. And research has shown that vaping is fundamentally different.

Even though there are many claims suggesting that vaping carries similar risks for those nearby, there’s really no solid evidence to back up the idea that secondhand vapour is as harmful as secondhand smoke. Reviews conducted by organisations such as Public Health England and the UK Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, along with independent researchers, consistently show that exposure to vaping aerosols is significantly lower than to cigarette smoke.

Unlike tobacco smoke, vapour doesn’t have combustion products. While it’s true that aerosol particles can be detected in indoor spaces where people are vaping, studies indicate that the levels of exposure are very low and well below what you’d find with smoking. This difference is important because diseases related to tobacco are mostly caused by combustion rather than nicotine itself. Still, more and more public policies are treating smoking and vaping as if they were the same thing. The World Cup ban is just the most recent example of this issue.

Restrictions don’t completely eliminate demand.

History has shown that bans don’t decrease demand; they simply shift it to less-regulated channels. This reality is becoming more significant for travellers heading abroad. A recent survey conducted by UK retailer Vape Club revealed that 80% of regular vapers would consider buying illegal vaping products while travelling if they can’t find legal options. Even more notable, over a third said they would seize the opportunity right away if it arose. These findings highlight a challenge that policymakers often overlook.

Millions of former smokers rely on vaping products to avoid returning to cigarettes. When legal access disappears, many consumers do not abandon nicotine. They look elsewhere.

This pattern has been observed in multiple jurisdictions with vaping restrictions. From Australia to parts of Europe and Asia, growing black markets have emerged to meet ongoing demand. The same phenomenon has been documented more broadly in tobacco control. High taxes, flavour bans, and prohibitions often lead to increases in illicit trade rather than eliminating product use.

The FIFA tournament underscores the increasingly complex global rules surrounding vaping. Currently, over 40 countries have implemented major restrictions on vaping products, including everything from strict import regulations to complete bans.

Mexico, one of the World Cup host nations, has adopted particularly aggressive anti-vaping policies in recent years. Travellers entering the country may face customs inspections and restrictions relating to vaping devices and e-liquids.

Elsewhere, enforcement can be even more severe.

Thailand has become one of the most notorious examples. Possession and use of vaping products can carry significant penalties, and authorities have implemented systems that encourage public reporting of violations. Survey data suggests many travellers remain unaware of these rules. Nearly half of Vape Club respondents did not know vaping was prohibited in Thailand. Similar knowledge gaps existed about regulations in Dubai, Turkey, and Australia. For travelling football fans, that lack of awareness could prove costly.

The greatest danger from restrictive nicotine policies may not come from regulated vaping products at all. It may come from what replaces them. Unlike products sold through regulated markets in countries such as the UK, illicit vaping products are not subject to ingredient standards, manufacturing requirements, product testing or quality controls. Research into black-market products has sparked serious worries about misleading nicotine labels, high nicotine levels, fake branding, battery failures, and contamination with harmful substances.

The 2019 EVALI outbreak in the United States serves as a stark reminder of these risks. Investigations that followed pointed to illegal THC cartridges laced with vitamin E acetate as the main culprits, rather than regulated nicotine vaping products. The lesson remains relevant today. When consumers are pushed to unregulated markets, regulators lose oversight and users lose protections.

The challenge facing policymakers is not whether nicotine use should be encouraged. It should not. The question is whether regulations should reflect relative risk. For those attending the World Cup who use nicotine, options such as nicotine pouches, gum, and patches could be useful for managing tournament restrictions without going back to smoking. Yet, the lesson here extends well beyond just football.

Whether it’s at international sporting events or within our own national regulations, policies that view smoking and smoke-free alternatives as the same can miss an essential truth about public health. People smoke because they seek nicotine, but die because they inhale smoke. As governments continue to tighten rules on vaping products worldwide, that distinction remains the most important of all.