Why England Is unlikely to boycott the 2026 World Cup

February 2, 2026 Oliver Obel

As debate grows over whether political developments in the United States should affect participation in the 2026 FIFA World Cup, England and other qualified nations may find their options constrained less by principle than by contract law.

The tournament, scheduled to take place across the US, Mexico and Canada, has come under renewed scrutiny following Donald Trump’s return to the White House. Concerns raised by supporters and football authorities include immigration enforcement policies, travel restrictions and broader US foreign policy positions.

While these issues have fuelled public discussion, there has so far been no formal move by any national association to withdraw from the competition, and FIFA has given no indication that exclusions are under consideration.

Legal obligations behind qualification

One reason for that caution may be the legal framework surrounding major international tournaments. According to Professor Simon Chadwick, a sports industry analyst who has advised FIFA and leading clubs, qualification is not simply a sporting achievement but the gateway to binding commitments.

Speaking to SPORTbible, Chadwick explained that national associations typically enter contractual agreements with FIFA and tournament organisers once qualification is secured.

“I don't know whether the contract has been signed, but implicitly… there is a contract,” he said. “And again, this is something that maybe people generally don't realise. You don't kind of play a few games and qualify, and away you go.”

Such agreements, he noted, can expose associations to sanctions if they withdraw unilaterally.

“There will be a contractual agreement that exists between FIFA, the tournament, and a national association like the English Football Association,” Chadwick said. “So if you unilaterally choose to breach the contract that exists, then potentially there will be sanctions.”

Germany’s stance and limits of collective action

The issue entered the spotlight this week after Germany’s football federation held internal discussions on whether a boycott would be appropriate. The DFB later confirmed its national team would still compete.

Chadwick, who writes as a commentator for GeoSport, said the episode illustrated why a coordinated boycott remains unlikely. Aligning multiple countries behind a single political position, he argued, would be extremely difficult given differing national interests and legal constraints.

What about the players?

Questions have also been raised about whether individual players could opt out on personal grounds. Chadwick suggested that any such scenario would likely involve negotiations rather than immediate punishment, but contractual risk would still exist.

“I think there would be a process of discussion and there would be a dialogue [between the player and] the English Football Association, [before] together [they] would find a way to manage this episode in the most appropriate way,” he said.

He added: “But yes, effectively, if you're a player and you say, ‘Right, I'm not getting on the plane today because I disagree with what's happening in the United States’, you are going to be technically in breach of a contract.”

No boycott plans for now

There is currently no indication that England, its football association, or its players are considering a boycott. With the opening match less than five months away, discussion continues, but the balance between political concern and contractual obligation appears firmly tilted toward participation.

SPORTbible has contacted FIFA and the Football Association for comment.

Sources: SPORTbible, GeoSport