By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A German soccer federation executive committee member, Oke Göttlich, has suggested the possibility of a World Cup boycott due to the actions of U.S. President Donald Trump, citing concerns over Trump’s actions in Europe. Göttlich’s comments come amid worries over high ticket prices and travel bans. He stated that the potential threat is greater than in the 1980s and that the federation should defend its values, despite potential resistance from federation president Bernd Neuendorf and FIFA president Gianni Infantino. Göttlich also dismissed concerns that a boycott would impact national team players.
Read the original article here
German soccer federation official wants World Cup boycott considered because of Trump, and honestly, it’s not hard to see why this idea is gaining traction. The prospect of a global sporting event being used as a platform for political posturing, particularly by a leader perceived as divisive, is understandably unsettling. When you’re talking about the World Cup, you’re talking about the pinnacle of international sporting competition – a celebration of the sport, and, ideally, a moment of unity, not division.
Considering a boycott, then, is a way to make a very clear statement. It’s a way for the soccer world to say, “We don’t endorse this, we don’t want to be associated with this, and we’re not going to let this event be used to legitimize or normalize certain behaviors or policies.” This is especially poignant when those behaviors are perceived to be harmful or at odds with the values of fair play and inclusivity that the sport is supposed to represent.
A boycott isn’t just about refusing to participate; it’s a way to send a powerful message. It’s about demonstrating that there are consequences for actions, that certain lines shouldn’t be crossed, and that the global soccer community won’t stand idly by. It’s also important to remember that it is not about politics, it is about holding leaders to account on the world stage.
The idea of relocating the games, perhaps to Canada and Mexico, as some are suggesting, is also an interesting proposition. This would be a dramatic step, a logistical challenge, but one that could potentially underscore the seriousness of the situation. It’s a bold statement, showing a strong disagreement with the policies of the United States.
However, the question then becomes, would FIFA, which is often criticized for its own perceived issues, be willing to make such a move? It’s a very complex situation, one involving vast sums of money, logistical planning, and political maneuvering. The assumption that FIFA would immediately jump on board is questionable. And, there is a strong possibility that some political leaders are using this to gain leverage for their own purposes, and not for the integrity of the game.
The comments also point out some real worries about the safety of travelers. The idea of increased surveillance, potential for arbitrary enforcement of policies, and the general atmosphere of uncertainty surrounding some of the suggested actions certainly gives one pause. And if the US can be seen as unsafe for non-Americans, then the integrity of the event is compromised.
Of course, a boycott would also come with its own set of challenges. Would it be a complete boycott? Would all the major teams participate? The impact of such a boycott would, of course, depend on the level of participation, if it were to occur.
And if top teams, like those from Europe and South America, actually boycott, the World Cup could be a completely different tournament. Imagine, Morocco versus Senegal in the final! This, in turn, underscores the potential for some unintended consequences. This would likely involve huge financial implications, as well as the loss of viewership.
Let’s also be honest: we are talking about a major global event, and the commercial interests involved are enormous. FIFA is a powerful organization, and the host nation is also unlikely to make it easy to make such a switch. The idea that this would be a simple or easy decision is just not realistic.
The calls for a boycott are fueled by a mix of concerns, from political disagreements to safety fears. And, of course, there’s the issue of the FIFA peace prize. This is seen by many as a clear example of how political and financial power can be used to manipulate international perceptions and rewards, which is the type of action that a boycott would be trying to take a stand against.
This also touches on the idea that the World Cup could become a tool for propaganda, that the event might be used to showcase certain political perspectives, or to influence public opinion in a way that is seen as inappropriate. A boycott would be a way to prevent that type of manipulation.
The issue of hypocrisy is also raised. Critics point out that the global community has had less concern about other nations, like Qatar or China. These are important questions about consistency and the criteria that are used to determine who gets boycotted and why.
But ultimately, a decision about a World Cup boycott would have to be based on a complex weighing of factors: the political climate, safety concerns, potential impact, and the values of the soccer community. It’s clear that the discussion is a heated one and a decision will ultimately rest on what the majority believes.