Boycotting US-hosted global sports events over Gaza, Iran: Symbolic protest or strategic leverage?
Geopolitical analysts caution, however, that while such moves may generate visibility and moral signalling, their tangible strategic impact would likely be limited without sustained and coordinated international backing.
SHAH ALAM - As global tensions rise towards the United States (US) and Israel as they continue waging their war in the Middle East, questions are arising about whether boycotting major US-hosted events like the FIFA World Cup 2026 and the 2028 Summer Olympics could be a realistic and effective geopolitical response.
Geopolitical analysts caution, however, that while such moves may generate visibility and moral signalling, their tangible strategic impact would likely be limited without sustained and coordinated international backing.
Universiti Malaya's Asia-Europe Institute (AEI) Deputy Executive Director, Associate Prof Dr Roy Anthony Rogers views the idea largely as symbolic in nature.
From a geopolitical standpoint, he regarded the idea of boycotting major US-hosted sporting events as primarily symbolic.
“The objective would be twofold...to demonstrate solidarity with the people of Palestine and to register protest against US foreign policy toward Israel.
“The intention is to convey a strong political message through peaceful means rather than to secure immediate strategic concessions.
“Historically, sports boycotts have functioned as visible political signals. The sustained international isolation of apartheid-era South Africa from the 1960s to the early 1990s illustrates how coordinated exclusion contributed to broader pressure.
“During the Cold War, the US boycott of the 1980 Moscow Olympics following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the Soviet boycott of the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics, demonstrated how major sporting events became arenas for geopolitical contestation.
“Whether such actions produced immediate behavioural change is debatable, but their symbolic resonance was undeniable,” he said in an interview with Sinar Daily.
Rogers highlighted that coordinated action would be difficult to implement in practice.
He pointed out that achieving unity within regional blocs such as Asean or the European Union (EU) remains highly challenging, as member states typically prioritise their own national interests and strategic considerations.
While there may be general agreement in principle, consensus often weakens when concrete commitments or deeper collective action are required.
He added that beyond the act of withdrawal itself, the broader objective would be to raise international awareness and draw attention to the underlying issues.
“Beyond the act of boycott itself, the wider aim is to elevate international awareness and express solidarity in a visible manner. Such measures can also create space for non-state actors, including international NGOs, to amplify the message.
“Even without pursuing formal legal avenues, the strategy centres on mobilising international opinion while avoiding military or economic escalation,” he said.
Meanwhile, Syaza Shukri of International Islamic University Malaysia emphasised that feasibility does not necessarily translate into effectiveness.
She said that from a geopolitical perspective, boycotting major US-hosted sporting events is feasible but extremely difficult to sustain in any strategically meaningful way.
For such action to carry weight, Syaza stressed that a substantial number of influential countries would need to participate; if only a handful withdraw, the host country bears limited cost and the event proceeds largely unaffected.
“Coordination becomes even more complex in jointly hosted tournaments such as the World Cup. Historical precedents show mixed outcomes.
“The Soviet boycott of the 1984 Olympics did not significantly alter US behaviour, whereas the sustained exclusion of apartheid South Africa across multiple international federations contributed to its broader political isolation.
“The central lesson is that tangible impact requires long-term, coordinated pressure rather than a symbolic, one-off withdrawal. Achieving such coordination is particularly challenging within regional blocs.
“Asean operates by consensus, making unified action against a superpower highly unlikely. The EU has stronger institutional mechanisms, but many foreign policy decisions still require unanimity, allowing a small number of member states to block collective measures.
“Ultimately, each country’s position depends on its economic exposure to US markets and reliance on US security guarantees, which vary considerably even within the same grouping,” she told Sinar Daily.
Beyond sports diplomacy, she pointed to other formal mechanisms available to states to register dissent.
These include raising concerns at the UN General Assembly, initiating proceedings at the International Court of Justice or pursuing cases at the International Criminal Court, even though the ICC faces limitations in handling politically sensitive matters.
Targeted sanctions and diplomatic mediation remain additional policy tools. However, in the present context, the so-called rules-based international order appears to be facing significant strain.
“While a coordinated boycott may enhance moral visibility and signal principled opposition, it risks diminishing diplomatic leverage if perceived as merely performative.
“Broader dissatisfaction with US foreign policy could gradually encourage more diversified, issue-based alignments in an increasingly multipolar system, but sports boycotts on their own rarely produce transformative geopolitical change and remain largely symbolic instruments of statecraft,” she said.
Both analysts converge on a central conclusion: sports boycotts can generate global visibility and convey moral positioning, but without sustained multilateral coordination and integration into a broader diplomatic strategy, they are unlikely to produce immediate shifts in the US and Israel's ongoing wars.
As geopolitical tensions continue to shape international alignments, major global sporting events remain powerful stages for symbolic protest, yet history suggests that symbolism alone rarely compels structural geopolitical transformation.
Download Sinar Daily application.Click Here!
