TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
Popular Reads
Top Results
No results found. Please check your search term and try again
Can't find what you're looking for?
View all search results
Popular Reads
Top Results
No results found. Please check your search term and try again
Can't find what you're looking for?
View all search resultsBoycotting the World Cup looks like scoring an own goal
As history has shown with regard to past Olympic boycotts, a similar move against this year's World Cup will be an equally futile, symbolic maneuver that achieves nothing more than moral signaling and spectacle, in addition to harming sport’s potentials as a soft power.
Change text size
Gift Premium Articles
to Anyone
Share the best of The Jakarta Post with friends, family, or colleagues. As a subscriber, you can gift 3 to 5 articles each month that anyone can read—no subscription needed!
FIFA chief tournament officer Manolo Zubiria (left) speaks alongside the world soccer body’s president Gianni Infantino (second left) and host Argentine sportscaster Andrés Cantor on Dec. 6, 2025, during an event to announce the FIFA World Cup 2026 match schedule in Washington, D.C. (Reuters/Jeenah Moon)
C
alls to boycott the FIFA World Cup 2026 this summer, cohosted by the United States, Canada and Mexico, over President Donald Trump’s renewed rhetoric on a Greenland takeover may sound principled, but they are strategically hollow. The French government’s refusal to entertain such a boycott is not cowardice or complacency. It is realism.
An executive committee member of Germany’s soccer federation was among those who recently suggested a serious discussion about boycotting the world’s most festive tournament.
Boycotts make moral sense only when they can plausibly alter behavior. In this case, they will not.
A World Cup boycott would impose real costs on players, fans and sporting institutions while exerting virtually no pressure on United States foreign policy. The signal would be loud, but the leverage would be nil.
To understand why, we must separate symbolism from statecraft.
Sport is a powerful theater for values, identity and emotion. It is not, however, a reliable lever for coercing a major power, especially one hosting the world’s largest sporting event alongside partners.
The US administration does not calibrate territorial postures or tariff threats based on the attendance of soccer teams. It responds to interests, power balances and domestic politics. A boycott does not move those dials.
