Sport in the shadow of politics

Europe’s leading national teams may be ready to boycott the 2026 World Cup due to U.S. President Donald Trump — statements to that effect are already being voiced.

In 2026, the world’s most prestigious football tournament — the FIFA World Cup, and a 34-year dream for the people of Uzbekistan — will take place. For the first time in history, the tournament will be hosted by three countries and expanded to 48 participating teams instead of the traditional 32. While nations such as Uzbekistan, Jordan, Cape Verde, and Curaçao are preparing for their first-ever World Cup appearances, one of the host countries — the United States — has begun the year amid major political controversies.

U.S. President Donald Trump has once again drawn global attention, first with the reported detention and removal of a foreign head of state from another continent, and later with sharp statements about seeking control over Greenland. Against this backdrop, with less than six months remaining before kickoff, the 2026 World Cup has already become entangled in a series of scandals. One of the most high-profile issues is the possibility of a boycott by leading European national teams.

Let us examine these developments and assess what may await a tournament in which Uzbekistan is set to participate for the first time.

On December 5, 2025, the official World Cup draw ceremony took place at The Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C. During the event, FIFA President Gianni Infantino presented Donald Trump with a special FIFA Peace Award. However, before discussions around the award had even subsided, Trump’s actions reignited global tensions.

In the early hours of January 3, 2026, explosions were reported in Caracas, the capital of Venezuela. Shortly afterward, Trump announced that the United States had carried out large-scale strikes on Venezuela and that President Nicolás Maduro and his wife had been detained and removed from the country. U.S. authorities accused the couple of “narco-terrorism.” The situation escalated further amid Trump’s subsequent statements about annexing Greenland.

FIFA has not provided detailed criteria explaining why Trump was awarded the Peace Award. According to a senior FIFA official who spoke to The Guardian, the decision caused serious concern within the organization and was perceived as a “deep embarrassment.” One FIFA official admitted that hosting the 2026 World Cup in the United States has now entered a “highly sensitive and complicated” phase.

Boycotts begin with the fans

As fears over security, political instability, and human rights concerns in the United States intensify, tens of thousands of fans have begun withdrawing from plans to attend the tournament. The situation reportedly forced FIFA to convene an emergency meeting.

According to Roya News, following rapidly spreading boycott calls on social media, approximately 16,800 ticket holders canceled their World Cup travel plans in a single night. Many foreign fans have cited discomfort with the political climate in the U.S. and serious concerns over personal safety while traveling across the country.

For many, the turning point was a deadly shooting in Minneapolis involving U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The incident, in which a 37-year-old mother of three was fatally shot by ICE officers, intensified public fears surrounding policing practices, public safety, and the risk of civil unrest.

Boycott debate gains momentum in the UK and Germany

Trump’s intention to bring Greenland under U.S. control has sparked outrage not only in Denmark but across Europe. Some politicians argue that the most painful response to Trump would be a boycott of the 2026 World Cup.

In the United Kingdom, Liberal Democrat MP Luke Taylor called for considering a boycott even if England and Scotland qualify for the tournament. Former Conservative minister Simon Hoare went further:

“Do European teams really have to play in American stadiums during the World Cup? A boycott would put the president in an uncomfortable position on home soil. We must fight fire with fire,” he said.

Similar sentiments have emerged in Germany. Bundestag member Jürgen Hardt, an ally of Chancellor Friedrich Merz, stated that drastic measures — including a national team boycott — should not be ruled out to “bring Trump to reason” over Greenland.

France and the Netherlands, already embroiled in trade disputes with the U.S., are also not remaining silent. French politician Éric Coquerel questioned whether France should participate in a tournament hosted by a country that threatens its neighbors and violates international law.

“Can you imagine the French national team competing in a country that talks about invading Greenland and disregards international norms?” he asked.

French National Assembly member Thomas Portes openly called for a boycott on social media, citing what he described as Trump’s “fascist actions,” including the detention of foreign leaders, threats of invasion, support for genocide, and visa bans affecting at least 13 countries eligible for the World Cup.

Meanwhile, a poll conducted by Germany’s INSA Institute found that 47% of respondents would support Germany boycotting the World Cup if the U.S. attempted to seize Greenland militarily. Thirty-five percent opposed such a move, while 18% remained undecided.

Has this happened before?

Although sport is often portrayed as a symbol of peace, unity, and fairness, history shows that it has frequently been shaped by political decisions and geopolitical conflicts.

One of the clearest examples is the 1980 Moscow Olympics, which were boycotted by more than 60 countries led by the United States in protest against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Four years later, the Soviet Union and its allies retaliated by boycotting the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics, citing security and political concerns. As a result, two consecutive Olympic Games became arenas of political confrontation.

Political influence has also reached FIFA World Cups. Notably, England — considered the birthplace of football — did not participate in the first three World Cups due to disputes with FIFA and its refusal to join the organization. Consequently, one of football’s founding nations was absent from the early chapters of World Cup history.

These examples illustrate that regardless of how global and popular sport may be, it has often remained vulnerable to political pressure. Boycotts and withdrawals have not only diminished sporting value but also deeply affected athletes’ careers.

For this reason, past experiences serve as an important lesson today. They highlight the complex relationship between sport and politics and demonstrate that global tournaments are not merely sporting events but also platforms of international relations.

For now, it remains unclear how seriously these boycott proposals will be taken by national teams and fans. However, if tensions between the United States and Europe continue to escalate, the withdrawal of leading teams from the 2026 World Cup may shift from speculation to reality.