Should soccer federations boycott the 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup?: a disputation

Amid concerns over corruption, human rights violations, authoritarianism, propaganda and overall geopolitical uncertainty, Adam Berg and David Kilpatrick offer contrasting arguments over whether national football associations should choose to boycott the 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup Finals, co-hosted by Canada, Mexico and the United States of America. Each debater provides three points in support of their respective position, and each provides counterpoints in response. Berg argues for a collective boycott. He focuses on the harms of inauthentic global idealism, corruption within FIFA, and the likelihood that authoritarian actors will use the 2026 World Cup as a propaganda vehicle. Kilpatrick argues against a boycott and emphasizes obligations to maintain associations and partnerships created through the tournament, the unintended drawbacks of a (even well-intentioned) boycott, and the World Cup’s value as a genuine unifying event. The point-counterpoint exercise aims to elucidate competing views and thus enable insight that football practitioners and policymakers can use for ethical decision-making.