Greenland Crisis and World Cup Boycott: How Has Football Become a New Lever in Geopolitics?
22/01/2026
With only a few months left until the 2026 World Cup kicks off in North America, this should have been a grand celebration for the football world. However, U.S. President Trump's repeated threats to annex Greenland, a territory of Denmark, are dragging this major sporting event into the center of an unprecedented geopolitical storm. European football leaders are discussing privately, politicians are speaking out publicly, and fans are signing petitions—a political game using the World Cup as a bargaining chip is quietly unfolding. This is no longer just a sporting event; it has become a crucial test of the resilience of the transatlantic alliance, the limits of international rules, and the boundaries between sports and politics.
An informal conversation that began in Budapest.
In early 2025, during the celebrations marking the 150th anniversary of the Hungarian Football Federation, around 20 senior officials from European football associations engaged in a series of informal conversations. According to The Guardian, the core topic of these discussions was not football tactics or commercial development, but rather the Trump administration's threat toward Greenland and the potentially startling impact this could have on the upcoming World Cup.
The meeting held in Budapest signifies the first time that European football governing bodies have collectively acknowledged the potential impact of this diplomatic crisis on the sports sector. Participants generally expressed deep concerns, described as unprecedented during Trump's tenure. Although no formal resolution was reached, a consensus is emerging: if the situation escalates, Europe may need a unified response. The UEFA Executive Committee is scheduled to hold its next formal meeting in Brussels on February 11, where the Greenland crisis is likely to move from private discussions to the official agenda.
The core of the issue lies in the structure of the World Cup hosting: Out of a total of 104 matches, 78 will be held within the United States. This means that if European nations choose to boycott, the competitive integrity and commercial value of the entire event would suffer a devastating blow. Football, the world's most popular sport, suddenly finds itself holding an unexpected and powerful geopolitical lever.
From Political Appeals to Public Sentiment: The Spread of Boycott Waves
The call for a boycott first emerged within political circles. Jürgen Hardt, the foreign policy spokesperson for Germany's Christian Democratic Union (CDU), publicly stated that boycotting the World Cup might be the ultimate means to bring President Trump back to reason on the Greenland issue. His party colleague, the influential parliamentarian Roderich Kiesewetter, was even more direct: If Trump actually carries out his threat against Greenland and triggers a trade war with the European Union, I find it hard to imagine that European countries would still participate in the World Cup.
These are not isolated remarks. In the United Kingdom, 25 Members of Parliament from the Labour Party, Liberal Democrats, Green Party, and Plaid Cymru jointly signed a parliamentary motion calling for the United States to be excluded from major sporting events, including the World Cup. Conservative MP Simon Hoare compared Trump's actions to those of a modern pirate, bandit, and bully. Meanwhile, French left-wing MP Eric Coquerel questioned on social media: Seriously, can we really imagine going to a country that attacks its 'neighbors,' threatens to invade Greenland, undermines international law, and seeks to dismantle the United Nations... to play the World Cup?
Political discourse quickly permeates the public level. In the Netherlands, an online petition calling for a boycott by the national team gathered nearly 90,000 signatures in a short period. A poll commissioned by Germany's Bild newspaper and conducted by INSA shows that if the United States annexes Greenland, 47% of German respondents support boycotting the World Cup, while 35% oppose it. Public sentiment is being ignited, especially considering that the German national team has never missed a World Cup final since 1950.
However, the official stance is currently more cautious. Christian Schendlein, State Secretary of the German Ministry of Sport, clearly stated that the government respects the autonomy of sports, and the decision to participate or boycott falls entirely within the purview of the relevant sports federations, not the political sphere. French Minister of Sport, Marina Ferrari, has also publicly expressed that, as of now, the Ministry of Sport has no intention of boycotting this major event. The President of the Norwegian Football Association, Lise Klaveness, shifted the responsibility to the government, stating that decisions involving foreign policy are the responsibility of the Norwegian government.
The discrepancy between official caution and heated discussions among the public and political circles reveals the complexity of the current situation: sports management institutions are unwilling to voluntarily step into political minefields, but in extreme scenarios, they may be forced to make choices.
Infantino's Dilemma: When the "Peace Prize" Becomes an Embarrassing Symbol
The President of FIFA, Gianni Infantino, finds himself at the center of an embarrassing storm that he helped fuel. During the 2024 World Cup draw ceremony in December, Infantino presented the inaugural FIFA Peace Award to Donald Trump in Washington. At the time, Trump called it one of the greatest honors of my life. Now, the photo of the two smiling in the Oval Office, holding the golden World Cup trophy, appears highly ironic against the backdrop of the Greenland crisis.
According to insiders, FIFA is increasingly embarrassed by this internally. Even more absurdly, Trump later mentioned on social media that the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize laureate (Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado) had given her medal to him, which inadvertently added a farcical footnote to the already highly questionable FIFA Peace Award.
Infantino's close relationship with Trump has now become a negative asset for FIFA. Analysis suggests that FIFA has historically avoided deep involvement in geopolitics, well aware that situations beyond its control could bring significant trouble. However, Infantino proactively shifted this stance, openly promoting the role of football and the World Cup in uniting the world, and actively engaging with leaders from various countries. Some individuals close to him even once boasted that few people in the world are more suited than Infantino to mediate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Now, this sports diplomacy is facing a severe test. Infantino is trapped in the web of relationships he himself has woven. As a football insider sharply pointed out: he thinks he is on equal footing with Trump and MBS (the Saudi Crown Prince), while they only see him as a useful fool. If a European boycott becomes reality, this most profitable World Cup in history could instantly turn into the most disastrous one. Infantino, the chairman who brought the World Cup to the United States, is anxiously watching and praying that this crisis will eventually subside, like many other storms of Trump's.
Chain Reaction and the Undefined Red Line: The Waiting and Watching in the Football World
The impact of the Greenland crisis has extended beyond political discussions and has begun to produce tangible ripple effects. It is reported that due to the uncertain situation in Greenland, negotiations involving American investors acquiring a Danish club have been suspended. American capital was previously highly interested in Danish clubs due to Denmark's football environment and access to the European market, but now geopolitical risks are causing hesitation in business decisions.
For European football associations, the biggest dilemma lies in the lack of clear red lines. Following the Russia-Ukraine war, FIFA's comprehensive ban on Russian football set a powerful precedent. This left UEFA with almost no room for maneuver when facing Trump's Greenland threat. A senior official admitted: Any U.S. invasion of Greenland would naturally force (us to make) a strong response.
Currently, most confederations are reluctant to openly discuss red lines, treating them merely as hypothetical issues. However, privately, concerns are very real. UEFA possesses a potential countermeasure: approving Greenland as a full member (Greenland has long applied to join UEFA or CONCACAF, but has been rejected due to its status as a non-independent territory). Yet, there is currently no willingness to push for this matter.
The fan base is also filled with uncertainty. After waiting for 28 years, Scottish fans have finally welcomed their national team back to the World Cup, with many having invested thousands of pounds in booking their trips. Andy Smith, head of the Scottish Football Association's supporters' group, expressed anger and concern: "One of my children has already spent 5,000 pounds to go to the World Cup, and many other 'Tartan Army' members have done the same. Deep down, do I still want to go? If they (the U.S.) act aggressively, then no." However, Stephen Flynn, the Scottish National Party's Westminster leader, joked that Scotland has been actively boycotting the World Cup since 1998, hinting that they should not go down that path again.
This crisis reveals a fundamental shift: global sporting events can no longer exist in a vacuum. They serve as showcases for soft power, yet can also become fragile targets for political pressure. Trump's desire to treat the World Cup as his personal stage—as noted by Norwegian American affairs expert Erik Bergs—precisely makes it a potential pain point for European counteraction. Trump is, at his core, a ratings-driven figure, analyst Nick McGeehan points out, and a European boycott would suffocate this World Cup, stripping him of his role in 'the world's greatest show.'
With less than five months until the opening of the World Cup, the football world finds itself in a contradictory waiting mode. On one hand, teams are preparing, tickets are selling, and the commercial machinery is operating at full speed; on the other hand, a geopolitical crisis that could disrupt everything remains unresolved. European leaders are weighing whether to use the World Cup as the ultimate leverage to force Trump back to the negotiating table or to uphold the traditional principle of keeping sports and politics separate.
The final decision may not depend on a single meeting or a single leader, but rather on the interactions across the Atlantic in the coming months. Trump's latest remarks at Davos—claiming he might not use military force while continuing to insist that the U.S. needs Greenland—have neither calmed the storm nor ignited a war. They have left a zone of strategic ambiguity, and football, with its billions of viewers, sponsors, and dreams, is right at the heart of this ambiguity. This crisis may eventually be resolved, but it has profoundly reminded the world that in modern geopolitics, the green field is no longer a sanctuary far from conflict.
Reference materials
https://www.vg.no/sport/i/j0BjMz/flere-tar-til-orde-for-vm-boikott-alt-kommer-til-aa-handle-om-trump
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c98j92ygjk8o
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/sports/2026/01/22/soccer/france-no-world-cup-boycott-plan/