There have been numerous instances of political turmoil, conflicts and even logistical mishaps derailing a team’s World Cup dreams. Although, since the mid-20th century, no nation qualified for the tournament has voluntarily withdrawn. Could that change now with the escalating conflict between the United States and Iran?
– “There is no possibility that we will participate in the World Cup,” Iran’s Minister of Sport stated following another day of attacks by Israel and the U.S. On its territory. The tournament, for which Iran qualified last year, is set to be hosted across the United States, Mexico, and Canada. Iran, placed in Group G, was scheduled to play all its matches on the West Coast of the U.S. – against New Zealand and Belgium in Los Angeles, and Egypt in Seattle.
President Donald Trump has alternately suggested the Iranian team is welcome in his country, while also publicly questioning whether the presence of a team from a nation engaged in military conflict with the U.S. Would be “appropriate, for their own life, and safety.”
Iran’s World Cup Participation Unwelcome in the U.S.
Regardless of whether the armed conflict with Tehran continues throughout the World Cup, and whatever decision the Iranian government ultimately makes regarding participation, the arrival of Iranian footballers in the U.S. Would present significant challenges for American authorities. As early as the fall, many Iranian delegates were denied visas ahead of the December group stage draw, citing “national security” concerns. Iranian citizens are subject to a travel ban to the U.S. Issued by the Trump administration, though You’ll see a few exceptions related to the World Cup. Even the head of the Iranian Football Federation was initially denied a visa for the draw, prompting Iran to boycott the event before ultimately sending a reduced delegation to Washington.
Recent suggestions from Iran indicate the country might participate in the World Cup under one condition: the relocation of its matches from the U.S. To Mexico.
FIFA has not commented on the proposal, but it would be difficult to implement and disrupt existing plans for team bases and match locations. A more likely scenario appears to be a World Cup without Iran. The nation has withdrawn from major footballing events before.
During the Iran-Iraq War, Iran refused to play Kuwait in qualifying for the 1982 World Cup and did not participate. They also declined to play qualifying matches on neutral ground, missing out on the 1986 tournament as a result.
Money, Travel, and Missing the Boat: Qualification Became a Foregone Conclusion
Those were qualifying rounds, however. Now, there’s a possibility of the first instance since 1950 of a nation that has already qualified for the World Cup voluntarily withdrawing. In 1950, several teams made such decisions, citing various reasons. India cited a lack of funds – their ministry had a budget for only one long-distance trip and opted to send athletes to the Summer Olympic Games in Helsinki two years later instead of the challenging logistical undertaking of the World Cup in Brazil. Turkey also withdrew due to financial constraints, while Scotland rejected their qualification, arguing they hadn’t earned it on the pitch, but through a cabinet decision. England had finished ahead of Scotland in qualifying. FIFA then invited teams that finished lower in the qualifying rounds to take the place of those who withdrew, though many declined the long journey.
Long voyages to competitions were a factor that diminished earlier World Cups. In 1938, only Brazil made the trip from South America to France. The rest of the continent’s nations were unhappy with the organization of a second consecutive European-hosted tournament or faced their own logistical issues. Of the 14 nations at that World Cup, 11 were from Europe. But Austria was absent due to the annexation of the country by Nazi Germany.
In 1930, for the first World Cup in history (hosted by Uruguay), federations were invited and awaited confirmation – there were no qualifying rounds. But it turned out that not all those who confirmed their participation actually made the trip. The only African team, Egypt, missed the transatlantic ship that was to take the team across the ocean. The players were left in Marseille and debuted at the World Cup four years later.
A Stadium Turned Prison and a Ban for Racial Segregation
Those historical events seem abstract today, but more recent times have brought more serious and complex situations. Many nations have been excluded or voluntarily withdrawn from World Cup contention for political or social reasons. But in the latter half of the 20th century, this largely concerned qualifying or playoff stages for the major football tournament.
Russia, currently excluded from FIFA and UEFA events due to the invasion of Ukraine, was a prominent example of withdrawing from the final qualifying stages for the 1974 World Cup as the Soviet Union. Despite a strong team, the USSR refused to travel to Chile for the second leg after the first match ended in a goalless draw, protesting the bloody regime of Augusto Pinochet, whose military forces were executing left-wing prisoners at the Santiago stadium – the very venue where the return match was scheduled. The stadium itself had been temporarily converted into a prison. FIFA refused the Soviets’ request to move the match to neutral ground, stating it would review the matter. During a site visit, a large portion of the prisoners were moved to underground facilities, including the changing rooms, while a small number remained in the stands, which FIFA officials attempted to ignore. They decided the playoff should proceed at the stadium, and the USSR ultimately refused to participate.
The situation was the first political boycott of a World Cup. However, withdrawing was also convenient for the Soviets. Sport was intended to demonstrate the superiority of the socialist system, and a draw in the first match against the theoretically weaker Chileans didn’t bode well for the USSR’s chances in the return leg.
From the 1966 World Cup, African nations withdrew in protest. Just before qualifying began, it was announced that Africa would not receive a guaranteed direct qualification spot for the best team on the continent. After internal qualifying, they would have to compete against the best team from Asia or Australia. The Africans issued an ultimatum: either a guaranteed spot or no participation in the World Cup. FIFA remained firm, and the 15 African nations initially registered for qualifying ultimately withdrew.
A different reason led to the long absence of South Africa. The nation was suspended by FIFA from 1962 to 1992 for its policy of apartheid, including institutionalized racial segregation in sport.
Cheaters Also Disqualified
In the 1990s, sanctions from the world football federation affected Yugoslavia (due to civil war), and then Serbia and Montenegro. Libya was excluded from qualifying for the 1994 World Cup in the U.S. For supporting terrorism, related to an attack on an American passenger plane.
Against the backdrop of such serious events, the stories of Mexico and Chile’s suspensions seem like soap opera plotlines. Mexico clashed with FIFA after cheating in youth championships by fielding older players. The affair, known as “Los Cachirules,” was one of the most embarrassing in the history of Mexican football. Some players competing in the U-20 tournament were several years older than the age limit.
Chile was also suspended for cheating. They lost the final stage of qualifying in 1990 and qualification for the following World Cup. During one qualifying match against Brazil, goalkeeper Roberto Rojas feigned injury from a firecracker thrown from the stands. The goalkeeper showed cuts on his head, and the entire team left the field. Initially, it appeared Chile would win by default, but an investigation and photo analysis revealed the firecracker had fallen a meter in front of the goalkeeper, and the player had cut himself with a razor blade found on the pitch, which he then hid in his glove. Rojas was banned for life by FIFA, though the punishment was later reduced.
Can FIFA Sanction the U.S. Or Iran?
History shows that in the face of armed conflict, decisions have sometimes been made to exclude the aggressor nation from the World Cup. Today, an interesting question is whether FIFA could consider suspending the U.S. Or relocating matches from the United States, even for security reasons. There has never been a situation where a World Cup host nation has bombed a country scheduled to participate in the tournament less than four months before the event.
FIFA, with President Gianni Infantino, who has a decent relationship with Donald Trump, has not even suggested considering a sanction for the military attack, such as moving matches planned in the U.S. Internal regulations do not require it to take action in this matter.
Paragraphs are also loose regarding supplementing the number of World Cup participants if a country withdraws. If Iran announces a boycott of the World Cup, FIFA will have several options. It could replace them with another team, with the most natural candidates being teams from Asian qualifying, such as Iraq or the United Arab Emirates. However, FIFA is not limited to one confederation and could theoretically invite the highest-ranked team that did not qualify for the World Cup, or the loser of the intercontinental playoffs.
If Iran boycotts the World Cup shortly before the event, it is also possible to award walkovers to the remaining teams in Group G – Belgium, Egypt, and New Zealand – for unplayed matches. A penalty for Iran is also possible if FIFA finds the justification for refusing to participate in the tournament insufficient.
The most likely scenario in the coming weeks involves waiting – at least until the playoffs are resolved and the final list of participants is known. However, if the Iranian team does not travel to the U.S. In June, it would be an unprecedented and shocking situation the world has never seen.
