Introduction
It is a rare occurrence for the International Federation of Association Football (FIFA) to exclude a nation from the World Cup; it is rarer for a participating country to boycott the World Cup. Both were on the table with the upcoming World Cup in the United States in the summer of 2026, concerning the nation of Israel. For this article, the main root of this conflict started in 2023. Israel’s conduct in the war has prompted widespread international criticism, with some governments, legal scholars, and human rights organizations alleging violations of international humanitarian law, including claims of genocidal intent — claims Israel strongly disputes. International responses to Israel’s military campaigns have become increasingly fragmented, with several United Nations bodies and officials condemning Israel’s conduct in Gaza, while others, including key member states, continue to defend its actions.
As part of this backlash, a Spanish lawmaker, Patxi López, stated that there is a possibility that Spain will reconsider its participation in the 2026 World Cup if Israel participates. Coming off their recent European Championship in 2024, Spain has a high position in world football, and its absence in this tournament would have been second only to Argentina, the standing World Cup champions. The discussion of whether Israel should be excluded from the 2026 tournament was extensive, but a loss to Italy ultimately ended Israel’s World Cup aspirations. Yet, the topic remains relevant. FIFA did not need to make an immediate decision on Israel’s status, as it was made for them, but perhaps they should have acted anyway.
Background
While rare, the exclusion of nations from the World Cup has a historical precedent on a case-by-case basis. There had been renewed calls for also banning Israel from this edition of the World Cup, including a statement by Spanish Prime Minister Sánchez, who cited the exclusion of Russia from the 2022 and 2026 World Cups due to the nation’s invasion of Ukraine. The first nation to be banned was Germany in 1950, following broader post-war sanctions after World War II. Japan was banned for the same reason. South Africa was excluded because of Apartheid, and Yugoslavia for conflicts during its breakup. Mexico, Chile, and Myanmar were all banned for non-political issues: Mexico for having overage players, Chile for player misconduct, and Myanmar for an unjustified withdrawal in the qualifying rounds. In the last ten years, Kuwait, Indonesia, Russia twice, Pakistan, and Congo have all been banned; the last three all for the 2026 World Cup. While most of these were not nearly as political a situation as Israel’s, the exclusions of Germany, Japan, and Russia were all conflict-related.
The Conflict at Hand
This raises the question of how international football governing bodies determine when allegations of severe violations of international law warrant exclusion from competition. The move to ban Israel from football competitions had been growing, especially within the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA), which hosts competitions like the European Championship and the annual Champions League. In fact, over 30 legal experts had requested that UEFA prohibit Israel and Israeli clubs from engaging in current competitions. On the national level, beyond Spain, “twelve Middle Eastern football associations have called for Israel’s national team to be banned over the war,” and the Turkish Football Federation specifically sent a letter to FIFA, UEFA, and leaders of the world’s football federations, demanding Israel be banned from all sporting events. Ireland, Scotland, Slovenia, and Norway all similarly refuse to play in Israel. While this isn’t specific to the World Cup, global boycotting of Israel in football is widespread. Israel was facing backlash and exclusion from the tournament entirely, and, if the nation had not qualified for the World Cup and were not banned, boycotts from numerous nations would have remained a possibility.
Such boycotts would have posed significant challenges for the World Cup, a cultural and global phenomenon, raising difficult questions about whether disruptions can serve as a tool of political pressure. It is clear that to many nations, international issues take precedent; for instance, the Turkish Football Federation’s president, Haciosmanoglu, stated that “football has always been far more important than a sport.” For Haciosmanoglu, “it’s a universal language that brings together different cultures, fosters friendships, and strengthens the bonds of solidarity among people. Guided by these values, we feel compelled to raise our deep concern regarding the unlawful situation being carried out by the State of Israel in Gaza and its surrounding areas.” Sports have long been used as a social and political tool, from Jackie Robinson breaking baseball’s color barrier to Didier Drogba pleading for peace in Côte d'Ivoire in the 2006 World Cup. International sports have served as a platform for political expression before global audiences. Spain’s position in the World Cup makes this even more of a relevant issue and one that does not seem to have a resolution soon.
In the Wider World
In the world of geopolitics, Israel’s potential exclusion represents a larger global system of public action and outrage. The conflict in Gaza, including allegations of genocide that remain legally contested, is an issue first between Israel, Hamas, and the Palestinian people, and second between those players and other global actors that play a role, like the United States or Lebanon. As technology and, hence, information accessibility, enhance, the world is more aware of global tensions. Most nations don’t play a direct role in this conflict, yet with their awareness of the conflict in Gaza, those nations, and especially their people, feel a responsibility to take action for what’s aligned with those nations’ values. Middle Eastern countries, sharing a Muslim identity with the Palestinians, took up the issue and called for Israel’s exclusion, but the primary mover of the issue was the non-Muslim nation, Spain, which may be attributed in some sense to its pro-Palestinian stance and its history of politicizing sports. Cultural backgrounds certainly help, but these issues are appealing to audiences vastly disconnected.
While the potential Israel and 2026 World Cup tension has now disappeared, this sort of conflict could arise again in the future. Football, as one of the most uniting global events, provides an outlet for nations not directly involved in the war to express symbolic discontent when otherwise it’s difficult to make a public stand for an issue. Israel is heavily scrutinized, and its role in future competitions could still be endangered.
Yet, not the entire world is fighting against Israel; some are defending the nation. Before Israel lost to Italy, Trump’s administration expressed a commitment to stopping FIFA from banning Israel from its competitions. A spokesperson from the State Department signaled opposition to efforts to exclude Israel from international sports competitions. As a global superpower, the United States’ word holds weight in FIFA; this sort of international pressure could stop FIFA from taking action against Israel. Especially in regard to this tournament, the United States, as the host, would have had great leverage if Israel had qualified for the tournament. The divergence between US policy and positions held by other states highlights broader tensions between great powers and multilateral institutions. The US-Israel-FIFA tensions and potential tensions could represent a global stand against great power influence.
The next few years of global football will be shaped by geo-political tensions relating to Israel from both sides, though it seems geo-political tensions in general could play a large role in the future of the world’s sport. With calls from various nations around the world for Israel’s exclusion from this World Cup and continued protests against Israeli football, this issue is only going to rise. The sport continues to become more politicized, and Israel’s situation continues to become a higher point of tension. It’s up to the world’s nations and world football to decide the line, if there is one, between politics and the everyday sport of football.
