Source: French to English Tester Published on: 2026-04-24
Source: The Conversation – in French– By Paul R. Carr, Professor (University of Quebec in Outaouais) & Chair, UNESCO Chair in Democracy, Global Citizenship and Transformative Education, University of Quebec in Outaouais (UQO)
The FIFA Men’s World Cup will take place in North America, from June 11 to July 19. Canada, Mexico, and the United States will host the event. This edition,which will bring together 48 countries, will be the largest ever organized.
The host countries of the 2026 World Cup were designated in 2018, and preparations have been underway since then. However, theUnited States policy has changed considerably with the arrival of Donald Trump to power in January 2025.
The international community is faced with an avalanche of measures, threats, and statements from the American government, which have caused chaos, confusion, instability, and significant political, economic, and socio-cultural vulnerability.
This situation has led to calls for a boycott of the World Cup,notably from Sepp Blatter, former president of FIFA.
It is clearly too late to consider modifying, transferring, suspending, or reshaping this international event which requires long preparations. The consequences of a status change for this tournament would be too numerous and significant.
Why now?
A series of recent actions taken by the United States raises serious questions about its ability to host the FIFA World Cup.
Here are some examples: destabilization of allies,imposition of customs duties without valid reason,launching a military offensive against Iran in collaboration with Israel,attack against Venezuela and capture of its president,threat to annex Greenland and Canada, elimination of USAID,exposing millions of people to famine, disease, and death, as well asviolence inflicted by ICE agents (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement), which endanger American citizens and residents.
Moreover, it is impossible to guarantee fair and equitable treatment to people wishing to travel to the United States. The current American policy couldprevent nationals of many countriesto attend the event.
There is a serious risk that people arearrested, monitored or persecuted. Racial profiling is a real threat, due toICE practices within immigrant communities in the United States.
Many also worry about the violence in the United States, which issignificantly higher than in most Western countries.
Moreover, theThe United States has withdrawn from numerous organizations and international agreements, which prevents any cooperation on global issues and blocks the possibilities of necessary and constructive exchanges.
All these realities go against the spirit of solidaritywhich characterizes international sporting events, such as the World Cup, whose objective is to promote peace and intercultural understanding.
FIFA History
Allegations of corruption within FIFA have been ongoing for years. They are recorded in aindictment of the United States Department of Justiceas well as in theGarcia reportcommanded by FIFA.
If FIFA is sensitive to these criticisms, and if some reforms have been implemented to make the organization more transparent and credible, many groups continue to assert that thecorruption is endemic.
The issue of human rights has been raised for a long timeas part of FIFA events. The 2022 World Cup in Qatar notably raised concerns regarding therights of LGBTQ+ people, and many players have worn the“One Love” armbandas a sign of protest. The issue of workers’ and migrants’ rights,victims of exploitation and discrimination, was also a cause for concern.
The carbon footprintAn event of such magnitude also raises environmental concerns. However, the argument thatthis event promotes global solidarityis just as valid.
FIFA is imbued with capitalist values, and this event promises enormous profits for a handful of people. The 2026 World Cup is expected toreport more than 10 billion dollarsTo the organization.
It is not really known if thetaxpayers and citizens of a host countryderive an economic advantage from organizing the World Cup, especially since they finance a large part of the costs through their taxes.
Similarly, marketing rights, television broadcasting rights, and distribution rights constitute aprofitable sector, but this incomedo not serve to fight against poverty, hunger, and the unacceptable living conditions experienced by many citizens.
Are boycotts effective?
The usefulness of boycotts is the subject of a debate. That of1980 Summer Olympic Games in Moscow, following the invasion of Afghanistan, andthe one from 1984 in Los Angeles, led by the Soviet bloc in retaliation, did not result in any real political change.
Some highlight the extent of the consequences linked to the elimination of all intercultural and diplomatic interaction.
In contrast, the sports boycott of South Africa during apartheid,1964 to 1992, has indeed contributed to significant changes in the country.
The current movement ofboycott, disinvestment and sanctionsagainst Israel, although it is not supported by the United States and many other countries, experiences mixed success. However, the mere fact that it exists andthat it receives broad supporttakes on political importance.
The costs of a boycott
Modifying or boycotting the World Cup at this stage would inevitably penalize national teams and athletes for political reasons beyond their control. This FIFA event has the potential to create a collaborative climate, promote understanding on a global scale, and have a unifying effect, particularly for countries of the South, often victims of a negative image.
Some claim that a boycott would affect moreplayers and supportersthan FIFA. The economic repercussions would also be considerable. However, the boycott is rather aimed at influencing attitudes, behaviors, and actions.
Some have proposed other ways to make things evolve, notably throughdemonstrations and citizen mobilization.
Among the other proposals aimed at prompting change are targeted boycotts of sponsors, institutions, or specific sectors. Some activists might target a particular policy, such as the repressive measures against migrants in the United States or corruption within FIFA.
A force at the service of the global public interest?
Boycotts are complex and have been more associated with the Olympic Games than the World Cup. However, citizens and activists all seek to build a fairer and more equitable world.
Protesters hold up red cards during an event calling for a boycott of the FIFA World Cup in Qatar, organized by the collective “Red Card for Qatar” in Paris in 2022.
In 2021, thehuman rights violations in Qataralso gave rise to serious concerns. Although aStatista survey conducted with 4,201 people in 120 countrieshad revealed that most of the people surveyed believed their country should boycott the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, but very few supporters were ready to do so themselves.
However, FIFA is not a political party. It is a sports and commercial organization. Although it is perceived favorably, it does not need the approval of the population to make choices. Furthermore, sponsors risk being targeted and having their image tarnished if public opinion suddenly turns against the event.
Will the FIFA World Cup be an opportunity for the United States to address issues such as racism, gender-based discrimination, warmongering rhetoric aimed at annexing other countries, ICE abuses, and the disparagement of migrants? Or will these issues simply be swept under the rug?
The World Cup could provide a platform to engage in a global dialogue based on sovereignty, human rights, and mutual benefits. Hosting arrangements organized by the three host countries could promote cross-border cooperation, even if relations are tense.
The current political climate in the United States does not allow the FIFA World Cup to be an event conducive to promoting peace and solidarity. Yet, the world desperately needs this.
The authors do not work for, do not advise, do not hold shares in, and do not receive funds from any organization that could benefit from this article, and have declared no affiliation other than their research institution.
–ref. Can the 2026 Soccer World Cup still contribute to global unity? –https://theconversation.com/can-the-2026-soccer-world-cup-still-contribute-to-global-unity-280687