Bold opening: Iran’s World Cup fate could hinge on a political storm, not just on the pitch. And this is the part most people miss: a boycott, relocation, or even a last-minute replacement could reshape the tournament in dramatic ways.
Could Iran skip the World Cup in protest of US and Israeli strikes? Iran’s football federation chief Mehdi Taj hinted that, after recent attacks, looking toward Qatar’s global showcase isn’t straightforward. He told Varzesh3, per multiple outlets including the Associated Press, that “after these attacks, it’s hard to look at the World Cup with hope.” The 2026 World Cup runs across arenas in the United States, Mexico, and Canada, with Iran’s group matches slated to be held in the US—specifically in Los Angeles and Seattle.
FIFA has the situation under watch. Secretary general Mattias Grafström said it’s too early to comment but that the governing body will monitor developments that could affect the tournament.
Could Iran boycott?
Iran is scheduled for two games in Los Angeles and one in Seattle, facing New Zealand and Belgium in LA on June 15 and 21, followed by Egypt in Seattle on June 26.
Beyond the physical games, the response pathway is murky. Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei’s status has been referenced in discussions about escalation, and Western leaders have floated extended timelines for further actions. Iranian officials have ruled out negotiating with the United States, adding to the complexity.
Historically, political boycotts of the World Cup are rare. The last major boycott occurred six decades ago, when several African teams protested their limited qualifying slots. This scenario is novel: a World Cup host State has attacked a qualified team so close to kickoff, with months still remaining until the opening match.
As Reuters’ coverage and commentary from experts note, even before these strikes there were visa tensions surrounding Iran’s participation. The federation previously threatened to boycott the World Cup draw in Washington, D.C., a move that highlighted political strains surrounding the event.
In that episode, an Iranian spokesman said visas were issued to some delegation members, including the head coach, but not to the federation president, underscoring the political frictions at play.
And the story has intensified since, with broader security and travel restrictions potentially affecting Iranian athletes, teams, and family members amid broader U.S. policy considerations.
What happens if Iran doesn’t play?
FIFA’s World Cup regulations allow the organization to decide unilaterally if a Participating Member Association withdraws or is excluded. In such a case, FIFA may replace the association with another eligible team.
Iran earned automatic qualification after the United Arab Emirates fell short, leaving Iran with a direct spot. If Iran were to withdraw, the next viable replacement could be Iraq, provided Iraq advances from its intercontinental playoff against Bolivia or Suriname later this month.
However, given the current tensions in the Gulf and the tense backdrop to the tournament, replacing Iran with the UAE or Iraq is not straightforward. FIFA can act as it sees fit under its rules, and past precedents show FIFA’s flexibility in unusual situations.
There is a recent contrast in FIFA’s handling of conflicts. For example, last summer, Liga MX’s Club León was excluded from a competition for ownership rule violations, followed by FIFA arranging a playoff between Los Angeles FC and Club América to determine another slot. That episode demonstrates FIFA’s willingness to improvise when normal routes are blocked.
FIFA’s rules also allow for the cancellation, rescheduling, or relocation of matches—or even the entire World Cup—for reasons including force majeure, health, safety, or security concerns. This means Iran’s games could, in theory, move away from the United States. It also leaves open the possibility that Iran and the United States could meet in the tournament, should both sides progress to the latter stages of their groups and be drawn to face each other in Arlington, Texas.
Bottom line: the situation remains fluid. While a straight boycott by Iran is possible in theory, the actual path FIFA takes—whether through replacement, relocation, or even a tournament reshuffle—will depend on how diplomatic and security developments unfold. As the world watches, fans, players, and officials weigh what a politically charged World Cup could ultimately look like.
Do you think Iran should participate regardless of political tensions, or is a boycott justified under these circumstances? What outcome would you consider the most fair or effective, and why?
