The 2026 World Cup takes place in an explosive geopolitical context which goes far beyond the framework of football. At the heart of the tensions is the question of Greenland, an autonomous territory attached to Denmark, which Donald Trump once again mentioned as falling within American strategic interests, reviving major diplomatic tensions with the European Union. Add to this the recent military interventions of the United States in Latin America and Africa, notably in Venezuela and Nigeria, denounced by several Western chancelleries as attacks on state sovereignty. These actions have fueled growing unease around the role of the United States as the main host country for the World Cup, with 78 of the 104 matches scheduled to take place there. For many European politicians, hosting the biggest world sporting competition in a country accused of “destroy international law” poses a major moral and symbolic problem, all the more so in the run-up to an event supposed to promote unity between peoples.
This unease is reinforced by the restrictive migration policy of the Trump administration, which directly affects the organization of the tournament. The US State Department announced the suspension of immigration visa processing for nationals of 75 countries, in addition to travel bans targeting nearly 40 states, including Afghanistan, Iran, Somalia and Russia. In this context, FIFA launched FIFA PASS, a system of priority interview slots for ticket holders wishing to travel to the United States. Presented during an event at the White House in the presence of Donald Trump, Marco Rubio and Gianni Infantino, this initiative aims to facilitate access to American territory for supporters, while enforcing strict selection upon entry. “America welcomes the world”assured the President of FIFA, when Marco Rubio specified that these slots would allow supporters to “show that they meet the criteria”. A measure which has sparked strong criticism, with some seeing it as a multi-speed World Cup, where thousands of fans, assistants, federation staff and even referees, from “countries deemed to be at risk”, could be de facto excluded from the competition.
Europe strikes back
Faced with this accumulation of tensions, calls for a boycott, or at least a debate on participation, are increasing in Europe. In Germany, the vice-president of the DFB, Oke Göttlich, estimated that “the time has come to seriously consider and discuss this issue”judging that “the potential threat is greater today than it was” during the Olympic boycotts of the 1980s. He openly questions: “Is there a taboo crossed when we are threatened? When we are attacked? When there are deaths? I would like to know where Donald Trump draws the line”. At the same time, conservative MP Roderich Kiesewetter declared that he “it’s hard to imagine that European countries will participate in the World Cup” in the event of escalation with the EU. In the United Kingdom, 23 MPs from several parties signed a motion calling for the temporary exclusion of the United States from major sporting competitions until it demonstrates a “clear respect for international law and the sovereignty of other nations”explicitly citing interventions in Venezuela and Nigeria.
In Scotland, the debate has also spread to the political sphere. Former SNP MP Hannah Kennedy-Bardell spoke on set about Scotland Tonight the possibility of a boycott of the 2026 World Cup, in reaction to Donald Trump’s threats regarding Greenland. “It’s easy to make light of Donald Trump’s madness and recklessness, but in reality it has real practical implications”she explained, evoking both the consequences for Denmark and the Greenlanders, but also the impact of a possible tariff war on European populations already weakened by Brexit and the cost of living crisis. In France, LFI deputy Éric Coquerel called on FIFA not to organize matches on American soil, pleading for a refocusing on Mexico and Canada: “no match should be held on United States soil”denouncing a country which “attacks its neighbors, threatens to invade Greenland” And “prohibits fans from around fifteen countries from accessing the event.” Former FIFA president Sepp Blatter did not hesitate to warn fans around the world. Conversely, several federations and governments refuse, at this stage, any logic of boycott.
In France, the president of the FFF, Philippe Diallo, reaffirmed his line: “I have a position of principle which is not to mix politics and sport”recalling that “sport is a place where all people come together”. While calling for vigilance, he assures that“Today, there is no desire on the part of the French Football Federation to boycott the World Cup in the United States”. The Minister of Sports, Marina Ferrari, goes in the same direction, declaring: “at the stage where we are currently speaking, there is no desire for a boycott”while specifying “not prejudge what might happen” if the international situation deteriorates. The Netherlands, and several European authorities, adopt a similar posture, favoring dialogue over rupture. In the background, the closeness displayed between Gianni Infantino and Donald Trump, symbolized by the presentation of a Peace Prize to the American president, however, makes any turnaround from FIFA highly improbable a few months before kick-off. A reality which further fuels the debate, that of a World Cup caught between diplomacy, sporting values and geopolitical balance of power.
