As the 2026 World Cup approaches, the conflict between the United States and Iran has renewed debate about whether the tournament should proceed as planned and what role ethics should play. President Donald Trump has said Iran is welcome to participate but suggested its team might avoid travel for safety reasons. Iran, in turn, has argued the United States should be excluded. The tournament opens on 11 June, and FIFA president Gianni Infantino continues to insist the World Cup can bring people together.
FIFA’s rules do not automatically ban countries at war from taking part or hosting matches, but the organisation’s own statutes—specifically Article 3—commit it to upholding international human rights standards. Critics say that pledge sits uneasily with recent behaviour by FIFA leadership. Infantino gave Trump the inaugural FIFA Peace Prize in December 2025 and attended the launch of Trump’s so-called “Board of Peace,” a move some see as breaching Article 4’s demand for political neutrality.
Alan Tomlinson, a professor at the University of Brighton who studies sport and FIFA, told DW that both Trump and Infantino “do as they please” and show little regard for the democratic principles their offices are supposed to represent. Observers also point to Infantino’s past actions—accepting a prize from Vladimir Putin after the 2018 Russia World Cup, publicly backing Qatar’s 2022 tournament while spending time there during preparations, and awarding the 2034 World Cup to Saudi Arabia—as evidence of compromised impartiality. His recent relocation to Miami, close to Trump, has further intensified concerns that FIFA’s independence is being undermined.
Beyond the immediate diplomatic row, a range of pre-existing issues had already made fans and campaigners wary of travelling to or endorsing the 2026 event. The tournament will be staged across the US, Canada and Mexico, but 78 of the 104 matches are set for the United States, and controversies over aggressive immigration enforcement, ICE round-ups, travel bans affecting certain nationalities, visa obstacles and ticket prices have all raised alarms. Earlier disputes around Trump’s rhetoric about Greenland even sparked talk of a European boycott.
Will the US–Iran war become the decisive factor that prompts boycotts or cancellations? Jake Wojtowicz, a researcher in the philosophy of sport and co-author of Why It’s OK to Be a Sports Fan (2023), told DW he doubts Iran will prove to be the single tipping point—though he suggested perhaps it should be. He argues public responses are shaped by perception: Western audiences scrutinise familiar powers like the United States differently than they do other hosts, such as Qatar, and that familiarity can mute criticism.
Both Wojtowicz and Tomlinson warn of another hazard: the World Cup’s spectacle can dull moral judgment. Fans attracted to the drama of matches risk overlooking policies and practices—such as deportations and tough immigration enforcement—by conflating sport with politics. Tomlinson says a host country engaged in military conflict, led by officials who accept polarising awards and are months away from staging a major global event, crosses an ethical line—yet commercial and economic interests often prevail.
DW sought comment from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International; neither organisation responded in time. Both groups had urged FIFA to address human rights issues at the end of 2025. Historical patterns also suggest sustained mass boycotts are unlikely: a 2025 Political Psychology paper by Paul Bertin and Pauline Grippa found many fans who intended to boycott the 2022 World Cup ultimately did not follow through.
Wojtowicz concludes that while a widescale ethical boycott may be improbable, fans and stakeholders can still act: publicly challenge attempts to use the tournament to launder reputations, practise everyday forms of ethical resistance, and keep scrutiny focused on human rights so the spectacle does not entirely eclipse moral concerns.
Edited by Matt Pearson