As the dust settles on World Cup 2026, the tournament offers a timely reminder that people can accept outcomes they dislike when they trust how those outcomes were reached. Supporters may argue about a marginal call, a reversed red card or a controversial refereeing decision, but the deeper issue is rarely the incident alone. It is whether the rules feel clear, the process feels consistent and the people applying it are seen as credible.
That dynamic is not confined to football. Social licence to operate works in much the same way. Communities may not welcome every disruption, trade-off or decision attached to a major infrastructure project, just as supporters may not welcome every call that goes against their team. What matters is whether they believe the process has been fair and transparent to those affected by it.
Large infrastructure projects face a similar test. Often framed as technical or engineering challenges, they can succeed or stall on trust: the confidence and legitimacy granted by the communities and stakeholders around them.
That is why communications must sit at the centre of infrastructure delivery. Just as clear officiating helps preserve confidence in a high-stakes match, good communication helps people understand how decisions are made, where their concerns fit and what accountability will look like over time. It is the difference between asking people to accept a call and giving them confidence in the process behind it.
Modern infrastructure now operates in an environment of heightened scrutiny, where every decision can be replayed and challenged by different audiences. Communities, regulators, civil society, investors and end users are more informed and more willing to question decisions than in the past.
Expectations also extend well beyond immediate disruption or construction impact. As with a tournament, people look beyond the final score to the wider experience: whether the rules were clear, whether decisions felt consistent and whether trade-offs were fairly managed. For infrastructure, that means understanding what a project will mean for an area, how benefits and burdens will be shared, and if concerns and commitments will be taken seriously over time.
HS2, the UK’s high-speed rail project, offers a clear international example. Designed to expand rail capacity and improve connectivity across the UK, the project also became a test of public trust in how major infrastructure decisions are made. Over time, debate focused not only on the need for new rail investment, but on cost, disruption, environmental impact, land acquisition and whether communities along the route felt they had actually been listened to.
HS2 also shows what happens when these questions become the centre of the debate. Where people are unclear about the rationale, unconvinced by the trade-offs or doubtful that commitments will be honoured, trust can erode quickly. Just as uncertainty over a decision can dominate the post-match discussion, weak engagement can allow doubts to harden around a project, often after positions have already become difficult to shift.
The role of communications has therefore changed. The emphasis is now less on persuasion at the end of a process and more on building credibility early and maintaining trust over time with genuine engagement as projects evolve. The aim is not to win every argument in the moment, but to ensure people can see how the decision was reached.
Social licence is not secured at approval or at launch stage. Like trust in a tournament, it is built gradually through repeated interactions, and it can weaken quickly when people feel ignored or dismissed. Projects that understand how stakeholders experience decisions are better placed to progress with fewer disputes and greater stability.
Building trust into delivery
All major projects invest heavily in the likes of governance and engineering yet pay far less attention to how communication and engagement will be managed over the life of the project.
When that is left to chance, facts are more easily misinterpreted, expectations begin to drift and trust can weaken long before a formal issue emerges. By contrast, a clear approach to communication and engagement helps reduce uncertainty, align expectations and prevent avoidable conflict.
Ultimately, social licence is earned through behaviour as much as messaging. Clear and timely communication, backed by visible transparency, helps build confidence that projects are being developed responsibly and with legitimate interests in mind.
If we are to deliver critical infrastructure that works for everyone, communication and engagement must be treated as delivery infrastructure in their own right. As in football, confidence is built before the decisive moment: through clear rules, consistent decisions and accountability that people can see. For infrastructure, that means involving communities early, being clear about trade-offs and maintaining trust through transparency over time.
Major tournaments show that legitimacy does not depend on everyone liking the result. It depends on whether people believe the contest was fair, the rules were clear and the decisions were made with integrity. Infrastructure faces the same test. As projects become larger, more visible and more contested, securing social licence will increasingly depend on whether people trust the process enough to accept the outcome.
