By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A prominent German soccer official, Oke Göttlich, has called for countries to consider boycotting the 2026 World Cup in the United States, citing concerns over state actions and threats of war under the Trump administration. Göttlich, a vice president of the German federation and president of FC St. Pauli, argues that the current situation parallels the lead-up to the 1936 Berlin Olympics, urging nations to avoid appearing as complicit in a regime characterized by aggression. This call to action is further fueled by the belief that the safety of citizens and athletes traveling to the U.S. is at risk, and the belief that the current administration is creating a new world order of unchecked US aggression. This stance challenges FIFA’s leadership and the potential dangers for fans traveling to the U.S.
Read the original article here
A Call Is Rising for Nations to Boycott the Trump World Cup
The idea of a boycott, specifically targeting the upcoming World Cup, is gaining traction, and it’s easy to see why. The potential for such an action to “drive Trump over the edge,” as some put it, is seen as a powerful motivator. A boycott of this magnitude would be a clear message, a public rebuke, and a significant blow to the image and influence of the United States under this administration. It’s perceived as a way to send a strong message, and the sentiment is gaining momentum.
This feeling stems from a deeper concern about the direction of the country. The criticism centers on issues like the treatment of citizens, perceived human rights violations, and the awarding of a peace prize by FIFA. This combination has led many to the conclusion that attending or participating in the event would be an endorsement of unacceptable behavior. The argument is that the current political climate creates a dangerous environment, making the World Cup in the U.S. an event that should be avoided. Some are even calling for a boycott of the Olympics as well, arguing that the US is not worthy of hosting such significant international events.
Echoing these concerns, comparisons are being drawn to past boycotts of the Olympics, like those of 1980 and 1984. This historical context highlights the power of international cooperation in sending a message to a nation. The idea is that a collective refusal to participate can force a country to re-evaluate its actions and potentially alter its course. The stakes are presented as high enough that staying away from the games is the only real option. Some even feel the US should be banned like Russia.
The safety of athletes and fans is also a major point of discussion. The suggestion that attending the World Cup could put international visitors at risk due to potential political unrest or arbitrary enforcement of laws is quite common. This perception of danger, combined with the other criticisms, fuels the call for a boycott. In the eyes of many, the current environment is hostile and unsafe for those who might not align with the dominant political viewpoint. It is seen as a situation where foreign visitors could face a risk of arrest or mistreatment.
The practicalities of a boycott are also being discussed. Suggestions have been made for alternative locations for matches, specifically mentioning Canada and Mexico, who could potentially step in to host the games. This indicates a recognition that the World Cup could still proceed successfully, even without US involvement. This also highlights a belief that the spirit of the game can and should be prioritized over political posturing. The importance of the sport itself is a factor here.
Underlying this conversation is a feeling of concern for how the United States is viewed on the international stage. Some believe that the current political climate has severely damaged the country’s reputation. The call for a boycott is, in part, a plea for the world to recognize and respond to the perceived injustices and dangerous behaviors within the US. The economic impact of a boycott is also cited as a potential leverage point to encourage change.
The safety concerns are also deeply intertwined with political realities. Many feel that the current environment is creating an unsafe scenario for those that may not align with the current administration. This sentiment suggests that the US may not be able to offer the security that other countries could. There are strong claims that the US is no longer a safe place for anyone from outside the country and that their data might be at risk if they were to attend.
Even those who might have looked forward to attending are considering the boycott, some having already sold their tickets and canceled travel plans. This suggests a widespread level of dissatisfaction with the current situation and the impact it is having on international relations. Many are encouraging other nations to stand in solidarity and to cut ties with the US until significant changes are made.
The call extends beyond the World Cup, with some suggesting boycotts of all upcoming international events hosted in the US, including the Olympics. The underlying sentiment is that economic pressure is needed to force change within the country, and that the world must take a stand against the current situation. The suggestion that the current climate creates an unsafe environment makes the boycott an essential action.
The argument that this event should be boycotted is presented as not only a political statement but also a matter of personal safety. The concerns about the potential for violence, the erosion of rights, and the perceived danger of simply visiting the country are significant. In this context, staying away from the World Cup is seen as a necessary measure for those who are unwilling to support the current US government. The idea is simple: the US’s actions have consequences, and this boycott is a direct response to those actions.