The British royal family will head the UK delegation at this summer's World Cup after Donald Trump confirmed he will not attend the tournament. The absence of the US president marks a significant shift in diplomatic protocols, leaving the royals as the focal point of international attention.
For the working class in Britain tuning into the tournament, the royal presence may feel like a distant pageant. Yet the decision has real economic implications. The World Cup is not just about football; it is about trade deals, investment opportunities, and the flow of money into our towns. When the prime minister or the royals attend, they are selling British goods, pushing for export contracts, and negotiating terms that affect the price of steel in Sheffield and the wages of factory workers in Sunderland.
Trump's decision to stay home could weaken the UK's hand in those negotiations. The US remains a crucial market for British exports from Scotch whisky to automotive parts. Without a direct line to the White House, the royals and government officials will have to rely on awkward chats over champagne rather than a bilateral summit. That could mean fewer orders for our factories and less security for working people.
There is also the question of the public purse. The cost of sending a royal delegation is not small. Security, travel, and accommodation for a royal tour runs into the millions. When our hospitals are struggling and rail fares are rising, every penny counts. The government will argue that the economic return justifies the expense. But for a nurse in Newcastle or a bus driver in Bradford, the benefits of royal handshakes are hard to see.
The royals themselves will no doubt charm and sparkle. They always do. But beneath the glamour lies a stark reality: the gap between the lives of working people and the lives of the elite grows wider with each state banquet. While the royals watch the football from VIP boxes, millions of Britons will watch from their sofas, worrying about how to pay the bills.
This is not to diminish the importance of international engagement. But the choice of who goes and who stays is a political one. And for those of us who live in the real economy, the absence of a powerful American president is a missed opportunity to put bread on the table.
