uncertainty and tension swirl around soccer’s World Cup
- Written by Daryl Adair, Associate Professor of Sport Management, University of Technology Sydney
On March 11, Iranian Sports Minister Ahmad Donyamali announced he saw “no possibility” of the country’s men’s national soccer team taking part in the World Cup scheduled for North America in June and July this year.
That prognosis came in the wake of US and Israeli military attacks on Iran, which have triggered a crisis across the Middle East.
Never before has a World Cup host nation been at war with one of the countries participating in the tournament.
The failure to find a diplomatic solution to longstanding multilateral tensions has not only impacted the supply of oil and trade routes, it has complicated one of the world’s largest sporting events.
Read more: Trump’s war language is aggressive and extreme. It also offers some insight into his thinking
Prizing peace, enacting war
In 2025, Gianni Infantino, president of soccer’s governing body – Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) – announced the inaugural “FIFA Peace Prize”.
FIFA, he said, intended to recognise:
the enormous efforts of those individuals who unite people, bringing hope for future generations.
In January 2026, US President Donald Trump was deemed the most worthy recipient of this accolade.
That is despite a litany of conduct at odds with the award, such as the US partnering Israel in the Gaza conflict, as well as the Trump administration’s “rapid authoritarian shift”, which has brought a substantial decline of civic freedoms at home.
Two months after Trump received his “peace prize”, the US partnered with Israel to provoke war against Iran.
Little wonder some critics have argued Trump’s award ought to be revoked.
Will Iran be welcome at the World Cup?
After meeting Infantino on March 10, Trump provided assurance the Iranian team would be “welcome to compete”.
Soon after, though, Trump wrote on his Truth Social media platform there would not be a welcome mat:
I really don’t believe it’s appropriate that they be there, for their own life and safety.
This veiled warning prompted a rebuke from the Iranian team, which insisted: “no individual could exclude a country from the World Cup”, and that it was the responsibility of a host nation to provide security guarantees for participants.
The players want to take part, even if their national sports minister feels it is a forlorn hope.
At this stage, scheduled friendly games against Nigeria and Costa Rica in Turkey, intended as preparation for the World Cup, are going ahead.
Pitch perambulations
Iran is scheduled to play three group-stage games in California and Seattle at the World Cup.
Competing in the United States is a sticking point for the Iranian Football Federation (FFIRI), which is responsible for the team.
FFIRI head Mehdi Taj stated:
We will prepare for the World Cup. We will boycott the United States but not the World Cup.
The Iranian hope, therefore, is the team be permitted to play in either Canada or Mexico, which are co-hosting with the US.
Mexico appears willing to play ball: on March 17, President Claudia Sheinbaum stated: “the nation stands prepared to host Iran’s group-stage matches should circumstances require”.
FIFA though said it was unwilling to move Iran’s matches from the US.
For the Iranians, the ability to take part seems more important than chasing a trophy: teams that make the final will play at New Jersey’s MetLife Stadium and Iran does not wish to play in the US.
Meanwhile, FIFA is privately pondering contingency arrangements should Iran not take part.
This includes making Iran’s place in the tournament vacant – which would mean a walkover for opponents – or replacing it with a team from either Iraq or the United Arab Emirates, both of which narrowly missed qualifying via the Asian Football Confederation pathway.
That said, Iraq is already scheduled to play the winner of a match between Bolivia and Suriname for a spot in the World Cup.
The UAE lost to Iraq in the relevant Asian Confederation match, yet should Iraq win its intercontinental playoff match, the team from the Emirates might be given a FIFA free kick into the World Cup.
Political football
FIFA states it is a “politically neutral” body.
But this has not stopped it excluding Russia from qualifying matches for the 2026 World Cup.
FIFA insists it did so for operational reasons: many countries refused to play against Russia, and if games were scheduled there would be concerns about security.
Privately, Infantino might be relieved Israel did not qualify for the World Cup, as both of these considerations may have come to light in the wake of the Gaza war and more recent attacks against Lebanon and Iran.
The withdrawal (or banning) of a team from the World Cup or qualifying matches has happened on a few occasions:
In each of these cases there were no follow-up penalties by FIFA.
If Iran withdraws from the World Cup, will FIFA sanction the FFIRI and, by extension, the national men’s team? A yellow card is feasible – a financial penalty. A red card is also possible – such as exclusion from the 2030 World Cup.
However, FIFA has the discretion not to impose any penalty, especially as the circumstances go beyond sport and have no parallel in World Cup history.
Authors: Daryl Adair, Associate Professor of Sport Management, University of Technology Sydney
