US President Donald Trump said Iran are still welcome to play in the 2026 World Cup but suggested they might avoid attending for their own safety. Iran responded that the US, not them, should be kicked out of the tournament. FIFA President Gianni Infantino has argued the World Cup can bring people together.
FIFA’s statutes do not ban hosts from being at war, but Article 3 commits the organization to uphold international human rights standards. Critics note a tension between that pledge and Infantino’s actions: he awarded Trump an inaugural FIFA Peace Prize and attended the launch of Trump’s “Board of Peace,” despite Article 4 mandating political neutrality.
“Both men, though, do as they please without serious commitment to the democratic principles of the organizations that they represent,” said Alan Tomlinson, a University of Brighton professor who studies the social history of sport and FIFA.
Would a US conflict with Iran change the calculus around the tournament? It’s not the only controversy surrounding 2026. In recent months, ICE enforcement, travel bans, visa hurdles and ticket pricing have prompted debates about whether fans should travel or whether the games should even be played. Calls for a European boycott swelled at points earlier in the year amid other political tensions. The question now is whether war with Iran will be the decisive moment.
“I don’t think Iran will be the tipping point, but maybe it should be,” said Jake Wojtowicz, a researcher and author who studies the philosophy and ethics of sport fandom. Wojtowicz says perception plays a big role: the United States has massive cultural influence in the West, while hosts such as Qatar were seen as less culturally integrated, which affects public reaction to controversies.
Global sport has repeatedly faced ethical dilemmas—Russia in 2018 and Qatar in 2022 are recent examples—but a host nation at war adds a different dimension. “A host country at war, led by a political leader proud to accept a bogus Peace Prize, and now just months away from a five-week global sport spectacle, is without doubt a moral line that should not be crossed,” Tomlinson said. He added, however, that moral lines often clash with commercial and economic interests.
Wojtowicz warns of another danger: the World Cup’s spectacle can blunt moral scrutiny. “You start to think of the United States in terms of Harry Kane scoring two goals to sink Brazil in the final rather than thinking about ICE or the fact that citizens are getting deported. And that’s the worry, that the World Cup gets in the way of normal moral thinking.”
Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have publicly raised concerns about FIFA’s human rights obligations and called for action, though they did not respond to requests for this story. Observers say Infantino has repeatedly stretched FIFA’s ethical boundaries: accepting awards from Vladimir Putin after the 2018 Russia World Cup, supporting Qatar’s 2022 tournament and its build-up, allocating the 2034 event to Saudi Arabia, and establishing residence in Miami near Trump during the run-up to 2026. Tomlinson argues this conduct is inconsistent with representing a global, democratic organization and has escalated contemporary ethical conflicts in the game.
Despite these ethical questions, sporting events often proceed. Research published in 2025 by Paul Bertin and Pauline Grippa found many fans who intended to boycott the 2022 World Cup did not follow through. Wojtowicz says that the irresistible draw of football makes large-scale ethical boycotts unlikely, but that fans still have a role.
“If someone says, ‘Well, Trump’s put on a great World Cup, hasn’t he?’ the correct response should be: ‘What are you talking about? He’s got nothing to do with this and he is using this to look better,’” Wojtowicz said. He advocates for active engagement and small acts of ethical resistance so that moral issues don’t get swallowed by the spectacle of the tournament.
Edited by: Matt Pearson
