From the World Cup to Work From Anywhere: How Tax Shapes Global Mobility

In AIRINC’s latest Global Tax Chat, I joined Grace Pursley and Jeremy Piccoli for a timely discussion on how tax continues to shape global mobility decisions, from the football pitch to remote work policies.

The 2026 World Cup

While the World Cup may seem far removed from traditional corporate mobility, the tax issues facing athletes mirror many of the challenges mobility teams manage every day. Players may be subject to tax in the countries, and in some cases, states or local jurisdictions, where they compete. Unlike the previous World Cup in Qatar, where income tax was not a concern, this year’s tournament introduces a much more complicated landscape.

Jeremy explained that athletes may face “jock tax” obligations depending on where they play, while I highlighted that treaties, residency, withholding rules, and non-resident tax filings all become part of the equation. The U.S. adds another layer of complexity, as state tax rules can vary significantly, and some venues may also involve local taxes.

The World Cup tournament began today, June 11, 2026, and is the largest and most lucrative football tournament in FIFA history. The event is hosted by Canada, Mexico, and the United States across 16 cities. The number of teams has expanded to 48, playing in 104 matches. The prize money is also larger, with a total pool of USD 655 million. The winning team will receive USD 50 million.

Generally, FIFA and the national football associations have been granted tax exemptions in the host cities, but that doesn’t apply to the players’ income. Players will generally be subject to non-resident taxation for income allocated to each match location. They will also need to declare the income on their home country resident tax returns.

Key tax considerations for the athletes include the tax rates and rules that apply to each match location, how the income is sourced, and whether there is an applicable tax treaty that may provide some tax relief. An interesting twist on the tax treaty rules for athletes is that a separate treaty provision for performers, artists, and athletes applies, which isn’t as generous as the dependent personal services treaty article. In other words, the 183-day rules don’t apply to athletes. Treaty relief will generally extend to the Canadian provinces, but it will not apply for U.S. state and local taxation.

The tax compliance will be challenging, including required tax withholding and tax return filings. If a player is on a team that plays in all three host countries, this results in three non-resident tax filings, plus a home country resident tax filing that claims double tax relief. There may be waivers available for withholding taxes, a requirement to obtain tax ID numbers for the non-resident returns, and the need to track the locations where matches are played and where training and practice days are held. Social security contributions will also need to be considered, including whether a totalization agreement may apply to exempt the player from host country social security contributions.

The tax challenges off the pitch can be just as important as those on it. We recommend a good tax advisor!

The key takeaway: even a short period of work in a location can create tax obligations, especially when compensation is high-profile and highly visible.

Poll: From a tax perspective, which World Cup host country would be the best to compete in for the beginning rounds?

• 65% said it depends where the players are from

• 20% selected Mexico locations

• 10% selected Canadian locations

• 6% selected U.S. locations

Around-the-World Global Tax Updates

Oman’s move toward implementing income tax

The discussion then shifted to Oman, where the government is considering the introduction of personal income tax as part of a broader effort to diversify revenue beyond oil. I noted that Oman has been exploring this move for some time, with implementation now expected in 2028.

The proposed system would introduce a flat 5% income tax on income above a threshold of approximately USD 100,000. While modest compared with many income tax regimes globally, the shift would be significant because Oman currently does not impose personal income tax.

Jeremy added that this development will be important to watch across the region. If Oman successfully introduces income tax, other Gulf countries that currently do not impose personal income tax may reconsider their own approaches.

Why it matters:

Mobility teams with assignments into Oman may need to revisit cost projections, hypothetical tax assumptions, tax equalization calculations, and employee communication. Even a relatively low tax rate can affect assignment costs and expectations when employees are moving from a zero-tax environment to one where income tax applies.

Cyprus’s new tax concession for repatriates

Cyprus was the next country spotlight. Jeremy explained that Cyprus already offers tax concessions designed to attract foreign talent, including reductions that can apply for several years depending on the individual’s circumstances.

The new development is different: Cyprus is looking to introduce a concession aimed at encouraging Cypriots and former residents to return. Under the proposed regime, qualifying individuals could exempt 25% of their pay, up to EUR 25,000 per year, for up to seven years.

This is an interesting shift in how countries use tax incentives. Rather than focusing only on attracting foreign workers, Cyprus is also trying to reverse talent drain and encourage repatriation.

Why it matters:

Program policies and assignment cost estimates may need updating to reflect revised benefits and limitations under the new regime. Mobility teams should also consider how repatriate incentives may affect talent planning, compensation conversations, and employee expectations when moves are employee-requested or business-driven.

Deep Dive: Remote Work & “Tax Shopping”

The conversation then turned to remote work and “tax shopping,” the idea that employees may seek volunteer assignments, employee-requested moves, or work-from-anywhere arrangements for tax-advantaged reasons.

Poll Results: Have you seen employees taking volunteer assignments, or employee-requested mobility (including work from anywhere) for tax advantageous purposes?

• 21% said yes, absolutely
• 12% said not yet, but they are sure it is coming
• 21% said they think it is happening, but they do not know about it
• 12% said people request it, but their organization does not support it
• 33% said they do not have these requests

I explained that while tax-motivated relocation is not new, remote work has made it more visible and more accessible. Employees may be motivated not only by lower taxes, but also by cost of living, housing, lifestyle, and culture.

Jeremy added that this is increasingly becoming a practical policy question for employers. If an employee moves from a high-cost, high-tax location to a lower-cost location, should their salary change? What happens if they move in the opposite direction? How should companies balance fairness, retention, cost control, and local pay practices?

Why it matters:

For mobility teams, these requests can create complex tax, payroll, compensation, and governance questions. Organizations may need clearer policies around employee-requested mobility, remote work locations, and how tax costs or savings are treated.

How Tax Impacts Mobility Decisions

The final section focused on the broader role of tax in mobility program design. Grace noted that tax influences nearly every part of an assignment, including compensation, assignment costs, employee experience, policy design, and stakeholder alignment.

Common questions mobility teams continue to ask include:

• Should the company use tax equalization or tax protection?

• How should Social Security and pensions be handled?

• How do tax treaties affect support?

• What is fair treatment for employees across different home and host combinations?

Grace shared an example of a non-governmental organization (NGO) with employees in the same location and similar roles but with very different tax burdens because they came from different home countries. Some employees qualified for an NGO tax exemption, while similar employees did not qualify and were liable for host country tax. This created a challenge for an organization aiming for equitable treatment, because tax outcomes were driven by each employee’s unique facts and circumstances.

I also emphasized that taxes are often one of the most expensive components of mobility programs. Because tax costs can materially affect budgets, it is critical to educate stakeholders early and align priorities before policy decisions are finalized.

The central message was clear: there is rarely a perfect answer. Mobility teams often need to balance equity, simplicity, cost control, compliance, and employee experience.

Looking Ahead

This Global Tax Chat showed how tax can influence mobility decisions in unexpected ways, from World Cup athletes competing across North America to employees considering remote work locations for tax advantages. Whether companies are assessing new country rules, responding to employee-requested moves, or redesigning mobility policies, tax should be part of the conversation from the beginning.

If you missed the live session, the recording is available here, where you can also watch past Global Tax Chats.

Further Global Tax Chats will continue in the fall of 2026. Subscribe to our blog to receive future invites.