A World Cup boycott over Trump? Football’s hypotheticals cannot be dismissed any more | Football politics
Could European countries really decide to boycott the World Cup this summer? It’s a surprising question to ask in 2026 and an indictment of the impasse we find ourselves in as Donald Trump sows confusion around the potential annexation of Greenland, the world’s most popular sport. But the idea is at least seeping into the mainstream and senior figures are wondering what it would take, in the worst-case scenario, for football to rise to the moment.
Unprecedented times call for previously unthinkable conversations. As the Guardian reported this week, the Hungarian Federation’s birthday party on Monday became the venue for unofficial discussions among national association leaders about how a unified approach to the US-shaped problem could take shape.
Although flexibility is essential in a volatile and rapidly changing situation, it is recognized that no one can afford to sleep if the time has come to act.
This is why there is a growing belief that European governing bodies, whether led by individual federations or UEFA itself, must unite behind a common position – or at least prepare one. Sources described a tightening of unity since Trump, whose suggestion on Wednesday not to take Greenland by force – and later that there were outlines of a deal – must certainly be treated with caution.
If some federations seem relatively indifferent to the spectacle of Trump receiving the peace prize in December from the hands of FIFA president Gianni Infantino, choosing in some cases to find a funny side, the seriousness of current events escapes no one.
The close connection between Infantino’s management and the Trump administration means European football cannot look away. There is a consensus that FIFA has chosen to politicize itself; this could have consequences if the American president intensifies his aims on a territory which indisputably belongs to a member of UEFA, Denmark.
Then there is the precedent of recent history. Russia was quickly excluded from international competition after its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, largely because other countries refused to compete with it. Why should the United States be treated differently if it sends troops, and why should its participation in the World Cup be offered as an extra?
Some key figures expect military aggression to be the breaking point for UEFA and the federations it covers. If Trump’s latest statements stand the test of time, it means that rumors of a boycott will remain muted for now. This remains a distant prospect.
None of the European associations are in a hurry to make their position public and many of them could follow their government’s positions. The question is whether this will be enough for those who believe that football has a unique opportunity to assert itself.
French Sports Minister Marina Ferrari said Tuesday, in response to calls from elsewhere on the political spectrum, that the country had no plans to boycott, but added the caveat “in the current state of things.” But German Sports Minister Christiane Schenderlein referred any decision to “relevant sports associations”.
There are certainly some in football’s corridors of power who feel a position could be taken while politicians procrastinate. Trump has been committed to the World Cup project since his first term, naturally mentioning his own hard work leading the bid when it succeeded in 2018.
The prospect of visible and palpable damage to his last great moment would not be easy for the president to bear. Perhaps if UEFA and its federations showed strength, Infantino might even feel compelled to engage in full-scale diplomacy with his friend around the Greenland issue.
Some within UEFA would make efforts to see Infantino put in his place. Soccer’s top governing bodies experienced a high-profile row in May over Infantino’s conduct at the Fifa congress in Paraguay, although that row was quickly calmed in public. More moderate forces close to the organization may not favor inflammatory actions this time around, with the future of world football facing enough uncertainty, but the sport has been planted in uncharted waters and may need to swim hard.
The hypotheses persist, but they cannot be purely dismissed as such. Recent events have highlighted that football leaders must be agile and the message hits home. Initiatives such as the hugely popular petition in the Netherlands calling for a boycott of the World Cup suggest that public opinion would favor decisive action if the unthinkable happened.
The pitch may have been launched quietly. The lingering hope is that, for reasons in which football is unpleasantly embroiled, it will never need to be tested.
