Bold headline: Iran’s World Cup fate hangs in the balance as tensions flare over US strikes, with the future of their participation and possible replacements up for debate.
Iran’s football federation chief has floated the idea of boycotting the World Cup in response to the United States and Israel strikes on the country. Multiple outlets, including the Associated Press, quote Mehdi Taj telling the sports site Varzesh3, “What is certain is that after these attacks, it’s hard to look at the World Cup with hope.” The tournament is set to take place across several cities in the United States, Mexico, and Canada, with Iran’s group-stage matches scheduled in the U.S. between Los Angeles and Seattle.
FIFA is watching developments closely. Secretary-general Mattias Grafstrom said on Saturday that it is too early to comment, but the organization will monitor events worldwide that could affect the tournament.
Could Iran boycott?
Iran is slated to play two World Cup matches in Los Angeles and another in Seattle, facing New Zealand and Belgium in Los Angeles on June 15 and 21, then Egypt in Seattle on June 26.
Beyond the strikes, the exact sporting response from Iran remains unclear. Iran’s Supreme Leader has died, and U.S. President Trump has suggested the strikes could continue for the next four weeks. Iranian officials have ruled out negotiating with the United States.
Historically, there has never been a World Cup boycott on purely political grounds; the last boycott of the event occurred 60 years ago when African teams protested an unfair distribution of qualifying berths. What’s unusual this time is a World Cup host taking military action against a qualified team so close to kickoff, with only four months remaining before the opening game.
As Miguel Delaney of The Independent noted, several European countries discussed boycotting the tournament after the United States threatened to annex Greenland earlier this year.
Even before the strikes, visa-related tensions complicated Iran’s World Cup participation. The Iranian Football Federation previously followed through on a threat to boycott the World Cup draw in Washington, DC. An official, Amir Mehdi Alavi, said the U.S. had issued visas to four members of Iran’s delegation, including head coach Amir Ghalenoei, but not to the federation president Mehdi Taj. That draw boycott stemmed from what Alavi called “unsportsmanlike actions” by a host country.
The situation has since escalated. Athletes and family members were affected by previous travel bans, and the United States could still restrict Iran from competing on security grounds.
What happens if Iran doesn’t play?
FIFA’s World Cup regulations allow the organization to act at its sole discretion if a Participating Member Association withdraws or is excluded, which could include replacing the team with another association.
Iran qualified automatically after the United Arab Emirates lost out in the play-offs. If Iran does not participate, Iran would be the closest replacement option. Iraq could come into play only if they do not advance from their intercontinental playoff against Bolivia or Suriname in Mexico later this month.
However, given the Gulf region’s volatility after the strikes, replacing Iran with the UAE or Iraq isn’t straightforward, and FIFA has wide latitude to decide.
There are precedents. For example, last year Club León’s World Cup slot was affected by ownership rules, leading to a playoff between LAFC and Club América to determine access. FIFA also reserves the right to cancel, reschedule, or relocate matches or even the entire World Cup for reasons including force majeure or health, safety, or security concerns.
This means Iran’s games could potentially be moved out of the United States, but a scenario where Iran and the U.S. meet on the field remains possible if both advance far enough in their groups.
What this all means in practice is uncertain, with FIFA’s discretionary powers and the evolving geopolitical landscape shaping the path forward. How do you think this will unfold—and should politics stay out of global sport, or do geopolitical realities justify strategic sporting decisions? Share your thoughts in the comments.
