Former FIFA World Cup President Sepp Blatter. Photo / Photosport
“I think Mark Pieth is right to question this World Cup,” Blatter – who has faced scandals related to fraud – said in a post on X.
His comments came after Swiss defence lawyer and anti-corruption expert Pieth made it clear he supports a boycott in an interview with Swiss newspaper Tages-Anzeiger.
Pieth worked with Fifa on potential reforms just over 10 years ago while Blatter was president.
In the interview, Pieth said the US was in a “tremendous state of turmoil”.
“What we’re witnessing domestically – the marginalisation of political opponents, the abuses by immigration authorities, and so on – doesn’t exactly entice a fan to travel there.
“…there’s only one piece of advice for fans: Stay away from the USA! You’ll see it better on TV anyway.
Boycott debate: Can fans and teams really stay away from the 2026 World Cup?. Photo / Getty Images
“And: Upon arrival, fans should expect that if they don’t please the officials, they’ll be put straight on the next flight home. If they’re lucky,” Pieth told the Swiss paper.
Oke Göttlich, one of the vice-presidents of the German soccer federation, also told the Hamburger Morgenpost newspaper it was time to consider a boycott.
“We need to have this discussion,” Göttlich said according to the BBC.
In a post on X, French MP Eric Coquerel suggested the tournament be moved out of the US, while discussions of a boycott have also circled the United Kingdom’s House of Commons.
The calls come as the US faces criticism and protest over its approach to immigration enforcement, travel bans, climate change and foreign policy positions relating to Venezuela, Greenland and Israel.
Calls for a boycott have been made by figures like Sepp Blatter and Mark Pieth, citing US domestic issues. Photo / Photosport
The killings last month of Renee Good and Alex Pretti by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in Minneapolis, Minnesota have also been central to many discussions of a boycott.
According to Otago University sports scholar Dr Sebastian Potgieter, a boycott is possible – but not probable.
Potgieter, whose research focuses on history and social justice in and through sport, said countries dependent on the US for things like trade and services were unlikely to boycott.
“There were calls for the 2022 Qatar World Cup to be boycotted due to a litany of reasons – human rights violations of stadium construction labourers; state laws against homosexuality; concerns over bidding bribery; flagrant uses of sport to ‘wash’ the country’s image – yet for the most part, the only significant boycott to take place was that some networks refused to screen matches.
“Qatar carries vastly less global power than the US and in the era of things like Trump’s import tariffs, it’s hard to see any significant boycott taking place, such as teams relinquishing their participation.”
However, Potgieter said countries who do send their teams need to weigh up whether they can risk being interpreted as condoning US actions.
NZ Football suggested they were not considering a boycott and had “absolute faith” in Fifa. Photo / Photosport
Many World Cups in just the past two decades have faced some form of controversy.
For example, Potgieter said, South Africa in 2010 undertook forced removals of residents to make way for stadium construction and Brazil in 2014 saw large-scale protests at public funds being spent on stadiums rather than healthcare, education and infrastructure.
But you’d have to go all the way back to the 1980 Moscow Olympics to find the most recent large-scale boycott of a major sporting event, he said. NZ officially supported the 1980 US-led boycott, which protested the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
Potgieter said if there was a 2026 World Cup boycott, it would be shaped by the type of boycott pursued.
“The most effective boycotts are those which combine cultural boycott – such as withdrawing from the World Cup – with economic or trade sanctions,” he said.
Chris Wood of New Zealand All Whites. Photo / Photosport
“The most likely form of boycott to take place is by individual objectors – people who would have travelled to or watched the tournament but decide against it.
“Undoubtedly, recent stories of US border security and detentions will sway some people to rather attend matches played in Mexico or Canada.”
According to The Flying Kiwis supporters group founder Matt Fejos, that statement rings true.
Of The Flying Kiwis’ supporters heading overseas for the World Cup, 240 will be attending the All Whites’ Los Angeles (LA) game, compared to 390 attending their Vancouver games.
“There is a lot more demand and interest to go to Vancouver than LA,” Fejos told RNZ.
Fejos is also heading over to support the All Whites at the World Cup. He believed a boycott of the tournament would be ineffective.
“It’s a very difficult conundrum.
“A boycott is only effective if there aren’t other people willing to pay lots of money to fill those seats, so I don’t see it as, kind of, a possible or probable situation.
“There’s a lot of people that care a lot about football, and they have travelled a lot… to support the All Whites so they are far less likely to decide to make a stand and not go, for example, because it means so much to them and they have been planning it for years and years.”
Fejos said NZ supporters were more aware of their safety and that the World Cup would be harder to get to than in the past.
Potgieter also pointed to the concept of sportswashing.
Sportswashing is defined as the practice of an organisation, government or country supporting or organising a sports event to improve its reputation.
Potgieter said mega sporting events – like Fifa World Cups – were renowned as a tool for sportswashing.
“These big tournaments emphasise unity and bringing the world together, and there is a lot of that rhetoric particularly around Fifa as the global game.
“These tournaments are quite prevalent in creating particularly positive images for nations that might not have the best track record in terms of their political practices.”
He said it was “difficult” to say whether the US was purposely sportswashing.
FIFA President Gianni Infantino hands the Jules Rimet trophy to Donald Trump in the Oval Office on 22 August. Photo / Getty Images via CNN Newsource
“Whether it’s doing it purposely is perhaps less important, the effect could be that there is a public washing of the image.
“People get quite invested and emotional about these tournaments and that can have the potential to sort of obscure what’s the context or what’s the background against which these tournaments are taking place.”
In a statement, NZ Football suggested they were not considering a boycott and had “absolute faith” in Fifa.
“After working incredibly closely with Fifa as a co-host of their last international mega event, the Fifa Women’s World Cup 2023, we have seen at close hand the extent they go to deliver a tournament of this scale, and we have absolute faith in their ability to put on a brilliant Fifa World Cup 2026 in Canada, Mexico and the USA which we look forward to being part of.
“We saw approximately 10,000 ticket requests from Kiwis for our games, so we are excited about the prospect of having a sizable New Zealand contingency supporting us in Los Angeles, Vancouver, and beyond.”
NZ Football did not answer further questions.
Minister for Sport and Recreation Mark Mitchell said the decision to participate in international events sat with national sporting organisations, in this case NZ Football.
“These organisations are responsible for assessing risks and considering the safety and wellbeing of athletes and other staff.”
-RNZ