Calls for a potential boycott of the 2026 FIFA World Cup are becoming louder as political tensions, immigration policies and security concerns begin to overshadow preparations for football’s biggest global event.

When FIFA awarded hosting rights to the United States, Canada and Mexico in 2018, the idea of boycotting the tournament seemed almost impossible. However, shifting global politics and policy decisions have since created uncertainty around the competition, especially regarding matches scheduled in the United States.

Recent developments, including strict visa policies and travel restrictions, have sparked concerns among fans and football officials. Reports indicate that some countries — including Senegal, Ivory Coast, Iran and Haiti — have faced entry challenges due to U.S. immigration rules, creating fears that supporters may struggle to attend matches even if teams are allowed entry.

In some cases, tensions have already affected football events. Iran, for example, previously threatened to boycott a World Cup-related event after visa applications for key officials were denied, raising concerns about political interference in football activities.

Political leaders and football figures have also added to the conversation. Former FIFA president Sepp Blatter has voiced support for fans considering a boycott of U.S.-hosted matches, while some European officials have suggested that withdrawing from the tournament could be considered under certain political circumstances.

At the same time, host city leaders have attempted to reassure supporters. Officials in Los Angeles have publicly urged the U.S. government to guarantee that visiting fans will be welcomed and protected during the tournament.

Despite the growing debate, history suggests that large-scale sporting boycotts are rare. Even during politically tense tournaments in the past, most nations ultimately chose to compete. For now, many governments maintain that sport should remain separate from politics, meaning a full boycott of the 2026 World Cup remains unlikely.

Still, with the tournament approaching, the discussion highlights how global politics can shape even the world’s most unifying sporting events.