SHAH ALAM - As calls for sporting boycotts resurface amid rising geopolitical tensions involving the United States (US), Israel and Iran, questions have emerged over whether such actions are feasible or effective ahead of the FIFA World Cup 2026, which will be co-hosted by US, Canada and Mexico.
Former Selangor manager Zakaria Rahim provided his perspective on the issue, highlighting the growing intersection between global football and geopolitics.
Fondly known as Zack Rahim, he said he observed that modern sports can no longer be completely detached from political realities, while also cautioning that boycott movements come with practical limitations and potential consequences within today’s international climate.
“From my perspective, in a global tournament as significant as the FIFA World Cup, especially one co-hosted by three countries such as the US, Canada and Mexico, it is no longer realistic to separate sports entirely from politics.
“Events of this scale inevitably operate at the intersection of international diplomacy, national identity and global media narratives. When geopolitical tensions involve countries such as the US, Israel and Iran, these dynamics often spill into the football landscape through calls for boycotts, security concerns and political messaging.
“The central issue is not whether politics should exist in football, but how such influences can be managed carefully without compromising the integrity of the competition, while still acknowledging the political realities surrounding it,” he told Sinar Daily.
Zack further highlighted that while sporting boycotts can carry strong symbolic value and attract global attention, their real-world effectiveness is often limited and complex.
He pointed to historical examples such as the 1980 Moscow Olympics, explaining that although such boycotts were able to communicate clear political positions and draw international attention, they rarely led to immediate structural or political change.
“From a football perspective, boycotts carry significant consequences, as players, coaches and teams may lose rare career-defining opportunities, while fans miss the chance to witness elite competition.
“In addition, the sporting narrative may be overshadowed by political discourse, potentially affecting the broader economic ecosystem of the tournament, including sponsorships and investments.
“However, if such actions could genuinely contribute to global peace and stability, the discussion becomes more complex,” he added.
Zack also stressed that football’s global appeal lies in its ability to transcend borders, even amid political tensions and that governing structures must prioritise neutrality and stability.
He emphasised that football’s greatest strength is its universality, as it connects cultures, nations and communities in ways few other platforms can match.
To navigate geopolitical challenges, he said the global football ecosystem, particularly governing bodies, must uphold neutrality while remaining mindful of global realities.
“This includes enforcing clear security protocols, maintaining consistent governance standards across all participating nations and ensuring transparency in decision-making processes.
“Protecting player safety, preserving fairness in competition and safeguarding the integrity of tournaments must remain the primary priorities.
“At the same time, there should be space for respectful expression that does not escalate into institutional conflict, allowing football to continue serving as a unifying force rather than a platform that deepens political divisions,” he said.
The discussion around potential boycotts of the FIFA World Cup 2026 reflects a wider global debate over the relationship between sport and politics, particularly as mega sporting events become increasingly intertwined with international diplomacy and media narratives.
With the tournament set to be jointly hosted by the US, Canada and Mexico, concerns over geopolitical tensions have added a new dimension to conversations about security, participation and the role of sport as either a neutral platform or a stage for political expression.