British Politicians Urge FIFA to Ban US from 2026 World Cup: Does Trump's Behavior Threaten Hosting of the World's Biggest Sporting Event?
In a move that has sparked widespread political and sporting controversy, a group of British politicians from various parties signed a parliamentary motion urging FIFA to ban the United States from hosting and participating in the 2026 World Cup. They based their demand on President Donald Trump's actions, which they consider violations of international law. This motion comes at a sensitive time, with less than five months until the start of the tournament, which will be co-hosted by North America, Canada, and Mexico, amid concerns about the influence of politics on sports.
Context of the Parliamentary Motion: A Reaction to Trump's Escalation
Twenty-three British politicians from the Labour, Liberal Democrat, Green Party, and Plaid Cymru parties signed the motion, which was submitted to the House of Commons, calling on major international sports bodies to suspend the United States' membership. The proposal emphasizes that major sporting events “should not be used to justify or normalize violations of international law by powerful states,” specifically citing the recent US escalation against Venezuela, including the “abduction of President Nicolás Maduro” during a military raid in Caracas in January 2026.
The proposal adds that statements by Trump and other US officials include “veiled and explicit threats” against other countries such as Denmark (due to Trump’s desire to “acquire” Greenland), Colombia, and Cuba. According to the signatories, these actions constitute a threat to international peace, making the US hosting of the World Cup morally and politically inappropriate.
Potential Impact on the 2026 World Cup: Organizational Chaos Ahead of 104 Matches
The 2026 World Cup will be the largest in the tournament’s history, with 48 participating teams and 104 matches, 78 of which will be held in the United States (including all knockout rounds), and 13 each in Canada and Mexico. If FIFA were to accept the proposal, it could lead to unprecedented organizational chaos, such as relocating matches or redistributing hosting rights, threatening to cancel sponsorship deals and billions of dollars in investments.
However, excluding the United States seems unlikely, given the close relationship between Trump and FIFA President Gianni Infantino, who awarded Trump the first-ever Peace Prize during the tournament draw in Washington in December 2025, praising his efforts to "reduce global conflict." This accolade itself sparked controversy, especially after the events in Venezuela.
Political Context: From Peace Prize to Accusations of Violating International Law
The British proposal comes in the wake of controversial events, including the arrest of Maduro by US forces in a military raid on his palace in Caracas, which drew international condemnation from Russia and China and was described by British politicians as a "flagrant violation of national sovereignty." This was followed by Trump's statements about wanting to "acquire" Greenland and potential threats against other Latin American countries, raising concerns about a "return to the gunboat diplomacy" under a second Trump administration.
Reactions and Potential Impacts on Global Sport
The proposal has sparked a debate about separating sport from politics, with some human rights activists seeing it as an opportunity to impose sporting sanctions on countries that violate international law, as happened with Russia in 2022. Others, however, view it as "overly political" and potentially detrimental to the spirit of sportsmanship. The impact could extend to other events hosted by the United States, such as the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics, where the proposal includes suspending its membership in international sports bodies.
In conclusion, this British parliamentary proposal reflects the international tensions stemming from Trump's policies and puts FIFA to the test regarding its commitment to upholding the integrity of sport. With the World Cup approaching, the question remains: will sport remain neutral, or will it become an arena for political conflicts?
