Tensions between some European governments and the United States have sparked renewed calls for European teams to consider boycotting the 2026 World Cup, with politicians, fans and football officials weighing whether competing in a U.S.-hosted tournament would be appropriate.
The debate intensified after comments and policy moves from the Trump administration — most notably remarks about Greenland and a proposed 10% tariff on eight European countries — that many observers say make participation politically fraught. At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Trump said he would not use force to take Greenland but followed that with a warning he might use “excessive strength and force,” a phrasing that revived fears because of his record of abrupt policy shifts. Trump later indicated he would lift the tariffs if a NATO-related deal he referenced were completed.
European governments and football associations say they must prepare for multiple scenarios. Mogens Jensen, spokesman for culture, media and sports for Denmark’s Social Democrats, said his party is not calling for a boycott now but regards it as a last resort. “If that should happen,” Jensen said of a potential invasion, “then a boycott discussion is very, very relevant,” though he added he hopes such a step will not be necessary.
UEFA is reported to have held talks with several national association leaders after the tariff announcement. Of the countries affected by the proposed 10% levy, Norway, the Netherlands, Germany, France and the UK (England and Scotland) have already qualified for the 2026 tournament; Denmark, Sweden and Northern Ireland are in playoffs; Finland did not qualify.
In Germany some politicians have suggested that even economic aggression could justify boycotts. Roderich Kiesewetter of Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s Christian Democrats said that if the U.S. pursued a trade war with the EU, it would be hard to imagine European participation. Christiane Schenderlein, Germany’s state minister for sports, stressed that decisions about participation or boycotts rest with sports associations rather than politicians. The German Football Association (DFB) has not issued a public stance.
Pressure is also rising from the grassroots. Dutch activist Teun van de Keuken launched a petition urging football bodies to factor the political context into their decisions; it has attracted roughly 135,000 signatures. Van de Keuken and many supporters say they would regret missing the World Cup but believe political principles should take precedence if the situation deteriorates.
Critics point to FIFA President Gianni Infantino’s public friendliness toward Trump as undermining FIFA’s stated political neutrality. Concerns have been fueled by FIFA’s decision to present a newly created “peace prize” to Trump, which opponents warn risks turning the tournament into a platform for political messaging. Jensen and others have warned the World Cup could become a propaganda vehicle if FIFA and the U.S. administration align closely.
Timing may be decisive. The new tariffs were due to take effect on Feb. 1 if the NATO-related deal Trump mentioned was not signed — roughly 10 days before UEFA’s Executive Committee (Exco) meeting in Brussels. That Exco meeting could be a turning point for any coordinated European response. With 16 of the 48 World Cup slots allocated to European teams and many of the world’s top clubs based in Europe, a united European boycott would have major global consequences and might prompt others to follow.
Some countries are seen as more likely than others to lead a boycott effort. Spain, which has previously taken political stands on international competitions, has been named as a possible leader; Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez was among leaders who pushed for sporting restrictions on Israel last year. Norway’s FA president Lise Klaveness, a UEFA Exco member who has previously advocated boycotts and supported player protests, said any boycott should be collective: “We do not believe that an isolated boycott on the part of NFF is an effective means of lasting change. In these times, it is particularly important that countries in Europe speak with one voice and stand united.”
For now most political parties and football federations are adopting a wait-and-see approach to determine which of Trump’s declarations are rhetorical and which will become concrete policy. If threats escalate into tangible actions, the debate over boycotting the 2026 World Cup is likely to intensify, forcing football authorities and national governments to weigh sporting interests against political and ethical considerations.