Independence of Sports from Politics: A Legal Analysis of FIFA’s Double Standard in Light of U.S. Aggression and the Challenge of Iran’s Presence in the 2026 World Cup

By Mohammad Reza Nahavi
Master’s Student in International Law, Kharazmi University

Introduction: Sports Security in the Shadow of International Tensions

Leading up to the 2026 World Cup, the fundamental doctrine of sports independence has encountered one of the most complex challenges in its history. Although aggression is considered a matter of sovereignty under international law, the linkage of such actions with explicit threats by high-ranking officials of the host country against the security and peace of a national football team directly targets the public order of sport. The current challenge lies not merely in the act of the aggression itself, but in the serious threat to the security of Iranian athletes and FIFA’s significant passivity in the face of these threats.

This article, adopting a descriptive-analytical approach, seeks to demonstrate how the silence or inaction of international institutions in response to systematic intimidation by the host country can collapse the concept of neutrality in sports. To this end, it will first illuminate the theoretical foundations of non-discrimination and strict liability. Then, through a comparative study of judicial practices and the principles of responsibility of international organizations, it will analyze the prevailing double standards, in order to set out legal strategies for safeguarding the rights of Iranian football in this global arena.

1. The Principle of Non-Discrimination: Elaborating the Right to Participate in the FIFA Statutes

The right to equal participation in sports competitions is widely recognized as the foundational spirit of transnational sports law, and therefore, it would not be atypical to claim that this fundamental right must not, under any circumstances, be overshadowed by national affiliations, geographical boundaries, or the political inclinations of States. This foundational concept is enshrined in Article 4 of the FIFA Statutes under the principle of non-discrimination as a peremptory norm (jus cogens) of sports, stipulating that “discrimination of any kind against a country, private person or group of people on account of race, skin colour, ethnic, national or social origin, gender, language, religion, political opinion or any other opinion, wealth, birth or any other status, sexual orientation or any other reason is strictly prohibited and punishable by suspension or expulsion.”

From a legal standpoint, non-discrimination is a general obligation within the football community, the violation of which undermines the public order of sport. By formulating this article, FIFA has, as it were, created a small constitution for the world of football, in which any passivity in the face of state-sponsored discrimination amounts to the collapse of this entire legal structure. The host federation, by accepting the responsibility of organizing the World Cup, is required to guarantee fair and equal treatment to all members, irrespective of the diplomatic relations of states in the international political scene. When the United States government, as the sovereign of the host territory, threatens the security of players based on their nationality, FIFA is obligated to establish a direct link between the political conduct of the host state and the legal obligations of that country’s football federation. In fact, the responsibility for ensuring sports security lies entirely with the federation, and its inability or refusal to constrain the threats of its parent state constitutes a clear instance of systematic discrimination and an explicit violation of the principle of non-discrimination enshrined in Article 4 of the FIFA Statutes. FIFA’s silence in this regard amounts to a form of implicit affirmation of this illegitimate state of affairs.

International sports bodies are obliged to impose global standards over the domestic laws of states. In the case of the 2026 World Cup, when the U.S. government challenges a team’s participation through visa regulations or security threats, it is, in effect, “imposing domestic laws upon the global order of sport.”

The behavioral contradiction of FIFA in dealing with political interference by States becomes more apparent when it is compared with its current passivity regarding the statements of the U.S. President against Iran with its independent approach during the 1966 World Cup. At that time, when the British government refused to issue visas and to accept the flag and national anthem of North Korea for political reasons, FIFA stood firm on sporting principles and threatened the host that if such discrimination continued, it would strip England of its hosting rights. This ultimatum forced the British government at the time to back down and comply with the law. The contrast between that historic steadfastness and today’s structural passivity in the face of American obstructionism reveals a double standard and a moral decline in FIFA’s governance, where the legal rights of an innocent member are clearly sacrificed at the altar of the host’s political and economic interests.

2. Analyzing the Double Standard: The Paradox of Russia’s Exclusion and America’s Immunity

One of the most significant aspersions leveled against the system of global football governance in recent years is the selective and political treatment regarding the crime of aggression. In February 2022, FIFA, citing Russia’s violation of international peace and security, excluded its football federation from participating in all global competitions, and by this action, placed itself as an interpreter and enforcer of public international law.

However, on the eve of the 2026 World Cup, we witness an obvious paradox: while the United States’ aggression in its various dimensions and the direct threats of its officials against the security and well-being of the Iranian national team exist, FIFA has not only not moved toward excluding or warning the host, but also insists on continuing the hosting in a hostile environment. This double standard seriously undermines the principle of equality of members before the law. From the perspective of global administrative law, any institution possessing judicial or disciplinary competence is required to observe the predictability of its decisions. If military aggression led to exclusion in 2022, then the failure to apply the same legal logic to the United States in 2026 confronts FIFA with a legitimacy crisis and reinforces accusations of political bias and national/racial discrimination against the institution.

3. The Principle of Strict Liability: From the Serbia Case to the Australia Incident

In sports law, the host’s obligation to maintain security and order, unlike many areas of civil law, is an obligation of result: an obligation that does not merely require making best efforts to achieve the desired result, but rather commits to achieving it. This means that the host cannot escape liability by proving that it made an effort; rather, it is obligated to conclusively guarantee the actual realization of security and protective standards for all participants. This principle is solidified in Article 17 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code, which stipulates that host federations and clubs are responsible for order and security in and around the stadium before, during, and after matches, and bear strict liability for the occurrence of any incident. In effect, athlete security must transcend any diplomatic considerations, and the host’s responsibility for the physical and psychological safety of players is an intrinsic and inevitable duty.

The issue of the host federation’s responsibility for stadium order and security underwent a precise legal analysis in the arbitration case between the football federations of Albania and Serbia, which arose following the incidents during a UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying match between their national football teams. In that match, an invasion of the pitch by spectators led to physical altercations and the suspension of the game. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), in this landmark ruling, emphasized disciplinary standards and established the host federation’s liability for security incidents—even in the event of third-party interference—as a fundamental legal principle.

According to the ruling of the Court of Arbitration for Sport in the case of Albania v. Serbia (CAS 2015/A/3874), the host’s responsibility is based on the principle of strict liability. Pursuant to Article 8 of the Disciplinary Regulations, the host federation is strictly liable for any security breaches and the conduct of fans or third parties, persisting even in the absence of any fault or negligence on the part of the federation. From this perspective, the United States Soccer Federation (USSF) cannot absolve itself of liability by citing threats issued by governmental or political bodies, because under the jurisprudence of the Court of Arbitration for Sport, the host is in any case responsible for the consequences of its country’s sovereign conduct on the security and order of the competition.

The bitter incident involving the Iranian women’s national football team on Australian soil provides a concrete example of the host’s inability or refusal to ensure psychological and physical security. On that occasion, Iranian athletes found themselves in an environment where, influenced by toxic media propaganda and organized intimidation, they were subjected to efforts to disrupt their sporting focus and pressure them into forced asylum. This historical experience clearly demonstrates that when the political will of the host state is geared toward weakening a national team, the host federation effectively lacks the necessary will to fulfill its security obligations. For the 2026 World Cup, given the explicit threats by officials of the U.S. government, there is a possibility of far more dangerous scenarios recurring. Therefore, under the principle of strict liability, FIFA is obliged to take action to change the venue for Iran’s matches before any incident occurs.

4. Independence of Federations and Interference in Hosting: The Kuwait Case

Pursuant to Article 19 of the FIFA Statutes, federations must be run independently and without undue influence from third parties. The organs of the member federation must act in such a way that their complete independence in making sporting decisions is guaranteed. In the case of the Kuwait Federation (CAS 2008/A/1589), as well as the rulings issued by Kuwaiti domestic courts that were upheld by FIFA, it was established that even “state legislation” may lead to the suspension of a federation if it undermines sporting independence. In the present case, the United States government, by threatening athletes, has compromised the independence of its own federation. If the U.S. federation lacks the power to curb the positions of the U.S. government, it can be concluded that the American federation does not possess the requisite “independence” to host the Iranian national team.

5. FIFA’s Responsibility in Light of the Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations (DARIO)

Although FIFA is seemingly a private association, due to its monopolistic power, it is recognized in international law as a quasi-international organization whose actions are subject to the Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations (2011) adopted by the International Law Commission. According to Article 4 of these Draft Articles, any act or omission that constitutes a breach of the organization’s international obligations gives rise to legal responsibility.

Beigzadeh (2021, p. 142) elaborates that the passivity of an organization in the face of unlawful conduct by agents under its control may be attributed to the organization itself. Here, FIFA’s responsibility is of the omission type—that is, its refusal to take protective action against the host’s threats. First, under the principle of estoppel, FIFA, which based its decision in the Russia case on aggression, cannot adopt a different practice in similar cases. Second, according to the theory of attribution, as elucidated by the International Court of Justice in the Case of United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (1980), if a superior body remains silent in the face of unlawful conduct by agents under its control or overlooks it, that conduct is legally attributable to the body itself. Therefore, FIFA’s passivity in response to U.S. threats constitutes an internationally wrongful act, the consequence of which is the necessity of restitutio in integrum (restoration of the original situation) through changing the venue of the matches.

6. Available Legal Remedies and an Analysis of Litigation Paths

To safeguard the rights of Iranian football against this double standard, two distinct legal paths are plausible. First, the path of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which is useful for compelling FIFA to issue interim measures to transfer matches to co-hosts such as Canada or Mexico. The advantage of this path lies in its specialized nature in the field of sports law and its speed in issuing protective orders. The second path is through the Swiss federal courts.

One of the key legal strategies for Iran is to pursue the matter through the domestic courts of Switzerland; because FIFA, despite its global stature, is from a legal perspective an “association” registered in the Canton of Zurich and is subject to the national laws of its seat. This secondary status means that FIFA cannot, by invoking sporting independence, exempt itself from judicial oversight by Swiss civil courts. Therefore, any passivity or double standard on the part of this governing body regarding the rights of its members falls within the jurisdiction of Swiss courts.

The fundamental advantage of this path is that the case is examined by independent Swiss federal judges, who adjudicate the matter from the perspective of general rules of human rights and the responsibility of organizations, free from the customary lobbying within sports bodies.

Conclusion

The 2026 World Cup is a major test for measuring the credibility and independence of sports law in the face of political pressure. If FIFA cannot apply a uniform and fair standard regarding military aggression and threats to international peace and security, it will severely undermine the legitimacy and credibility of its legal system. The Football Federation of the Islamic Republic of Iran must, relying on the principle of strict liability, historical experiences, and modern principles of the responsibility of international organizations, utilize all international judicial capacities to change the venue of matches and safeguard the dignity and security of its athletes. The supremacy of law over politics is the only path to the survival of peaceful coexistence in the arena of global sports.

Bibliography and References

1. Books

Beigzadeh, Ebrahim (2023). The Law of International Organizations, 4th ed., Tehran: Majd Publications.

1. Documents and Judicial Decisions

FIFA Statutes, 2024 edition.

FIFA Disciplinary Code, 2023 edition.

Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations (DARIO), International Law Commission, 2011.

Court of Arbitration for Sport award in the case of Kuwait v. FIFA, CAS 2008/A/1589.

Court of Arbitration for Sport award in the case of Serbia v. Albania, CAS 2015/A/3874.

International Court of Justice judgment in the case of United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran, 1980.

International Court of Justice judgment in the case of Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, 1980.