The World Cup meets Trump's travel ban

If the United States bans citizens from a quarter of the world’s countries from entering, a boycott of the 2026 World Cup games in the U.S. might be in order.

By Shalise Manza Young

While much of the country was focused on a head-spinning weekend—a surprise bombing by the United States of Iran's nuclear facilities—that followed another head-spinning weekend—a political assassination, the jaw-droppingly cruel response of some lawmakers to those deaths, millions of people from cities big and small taking part in the “No Kings” rallies, and the sad, sad sound of old tanks rolling down a mostly-empty street—the Trump administration has been considering adding dozens more countries to its travel ban.

A reported communication from Secretary of State Marco Rubio named 36 countries that will be added to the travel ban within 60 days unless they work to remedy the United States’ supposed concerns. A ban went into effect earlier this month for an initial group of 12 nations, plus seven that were hit with severe restrictions.

Senegal, one of the countries on the new list, is already dealing with consequences. Members of its women’s national basketball team were slated to have a training camp in the United States ahead of Afrobasket, the continent’s championship tournament, ostensibly because the team’s coach is American. But 17 members of the team, including players and support staff, had their visas denied.

If the United States bans citizens from a quarter of the world’s countries from entering its border, should there be a boycott of the 2026 men’s World Cup?

The tournament, the most popular sporting event in the world, begins in less than a year. Eleven of the 16 host cities are in the United States; three are in Mexico and two in Canada. The championship match will be played at MetLife Stadium in New Jersey.

Even before this week’s proposed expansion there were concerns about teams traveling here because of treatment of individuals at arrival airports and the rapid rise of fascistic actions, which have now expanded from disappearing innocent men to a Salvadoran gulag and chasing farm workers through fields to wrestling a sitting senator to the ground and pressing fictional charges against a sitting congresswoman.

In a May letter to FIFA, soccer’s world governing body, Human Rights Watch said it has “grave concerns” over the United States’ border policies under President Donald Trump and how they could impact the safety of players and fans.

“The administration of President Donald Trump has implemented or is planning policies that fundamentally undermine the inclusive spirit of the World Cup and the non-discrimination policies under FIFA’s Statutes,” the organization wrote.

Whether or not that sentiment grows if the administration moves forward with putting three dozen more countries on its banned list remains to be seen. Iran, which was part of the initial 12-country ban, has already qualified for the World Cup. Several more that are now being targeted–Egypt, Ghana, Ivory Coast, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Cape Verde–are in position to make it as well.

But Trump has an ally in FIFA president Gianni Infantino. Both leaders have affection for corruption and authoritarian regimes; the previous two men’s World Cups were held in Russia and Qatar, not exactly standard-bearers for human rights. The countries did, however, have just the right amount of money to buy the votes they needed to host the tournament.

Last month, Infantino was hours late to a council meeting at FIFA’s Congress, which is attended by officials from the 211 national associations in the body. Infantino flew to Paraguay from Doha, Qatar, where he had met with Trump. Eight UEFA members (the governing body of soccer in Europe) and other European delegates on the council staged a walkout; in a statement UEFA said Infantino had put “private political interests” over the best interests of the sport.

The United States has said it will make exceptions for players, coaches, necessary personnel, and immediate family from banned countries coming to play in the World Cup, but fans wishing to travel to see them might be shut out. FIFA previously estimated as many as 6.5 million people could attend tournament games next year.

Beyond the multiple other rights violations this administration is committing on a near-hourly basis, it continues to broadcast its virulent anti-Black sentiment: Nearly all of the nations on the new list of 36 countries are either in Africa or have majority-Black populations.

Adding in the 12 countries that were officially banned and the seven that previously had restrictions imposed, 35 of the 54 nations on the African continent would be impacted.

And with the Afro-Caribbean countries of Antigua and Barbuda, St. Kitts & Nevis, St. Lucia, and Dominica also on the proposed list, the “administration should just put up a ‘no ni–ers’ sign and save themselves the trouble of writing out each country,” New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie wrote on Bluesky.

Given Trump’s disdain for Muslims—he’s painted Islam as a fundamentally violent religion for more than a decade—it’s sadly not a surprise that Gambia, Mauritania, Djibouti, Burkina Faso, Syria, and Kyrgyzstan are on the new list, joining eight other Muslim-majority countries in the initial group.

Just for good measure, the miniscule Oceania nations of Vanuatu (population: 335,000), Tonga (100,000), and Tuvalu (11,733—no, seriously) have been included. What the heck did Tuvalu ever do to anyone?

Rubio claims the selected countries have one or more issues that led to their consideration for prohibition: lack of a competent central government (has he taken a look around since Jan. 20?), dubious passport security and selling citizenships, significant rates of visa overstays, and being unwilling to take back citizens who are being deported from the United States.

Never not looking to take advantage of someone or another government, countries can stay in America’s good graces if they agree to accept people from other countries that the United States can’t repatriate or agree to be a “safe third country” and take in migrants applying for asylum.

Global sporting events have been boycotted before because of the host country’s behavior, most notably the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow, so it wouldn’t be unprecedented for the United States to get similar treatment. But with the rise in right-wing political figures around the world and some countries possibly afraid to stand up to the United States, the chances of a boycott now seem slim.

Let’s not forget that the 2028 Summer Olympics are slated to take place in Los Angeles, and it may not be long until there’s talk of moving the Games or boycotting them.

Sports can bring the world together, but this administration continues to show it has no interest in unity, only enmity.

Shalise Manza Young was most recently a columnist at Yahoo Sports, focusing on the intersection of race, gender and culture in sports. The Associated Press Sports Editors named her one of the 10 best columnists in the country in 2020. She has also written for the Boston Globe and Providence Journal. Find her on Bluesky @shalisemyoung.

---