Another war started. There was already the one between Russia and Ukraine, the one between Israel and Hamas (in Palestinian territory) and the very recent one between Pakistan and Afghanistan, abruptly overshadowed by the attack carried out by the USA, with Israeli support, on Iran this Saturday (28).
Iran is one of the 48 countries qualified for this year’s World Cup, which starts on June 11th and is hosted by the United States – the others are Canada and Mexico.
With war declared, just over a hundred days before the start of the World Cup, what is the real risk of the Iranians not acting?
The Asian team is in Group G and its games are scheduled for two American cities, Los Angeles (against New Zealand and Belgium) and Seattle (against Egypt), both on the west coast. LA, by the way, has a strong presence of the Iranian community.
There are factors to be considered, which involve decisions by the warring countries and FIFA, the entity that owns the biggest football event on the planet.
Sportingly, there is no reason for FIFA to exclude Iran, which was the country attacked. If I had to impose a sanction, it would be on the aggressor – he suspended Russia during the attack on Ukraine.
Obviously, it will not do anything against the USA, the country that is the protagonist of the World Cup – if it does, there will no longer be a World Cup there –, especially because the relationship between Gianni Infantino, president of the federation, and Donald Trump is one of deep affinity.
One option to try to reduce tension and security risks due to the Iranian team playing on US soil – demonstrations in the streets and stadiums are quite feasible – is operational: transferring the matches from Iran to Mexico or Canada.
FIFA will try its best to avoid this scenario of drastic reformulation, however, if a decision in this regard is taken, it must be done soon, as there are high costs involved.
Fans, including not only Iranians, but those of the opponents, would be affected in logistics (and in their pockets), as many will have already purchased tickets and booked flights and accommodation in Los Angeles and/or Seattle.
The sporting decision, however, appears as a supporting factor. The main actors in the repulsive plot are Washington and Tehran.
The White House may decide to ban the Iranian delegation from entering the US by refusing to issue visas. (“We are at war” is justification enough for that.) Or Ayatollah Ali Khamenei could decide that his country’s team boycotts the World Cup. (“We are at war” is justification enough for this.)
A definition of one side or the other will not necessarily happen quickly, as there are pros and cons to be weighed, primarily related to the political image of each nation, internally and externally.
The next few days will be vital in indicating the direction of the new war. The USA and Israel (a country that did not qualify for the World Cup) will try to overthrow Khamenei’s regime. Will they make it? If so, quickly? If this happens, will stability be rapid?
There is no crystal ball to predict upcoming events. And they will be the ones who will direct Iran’s presence or not in the World Cup.
If there is an absence, it will be the first time in the 22 editions of the World Cup (held since 1930) that a qualified country will be left out of the competition for political-diplomatic reasons that have resulted in a war.
LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.
