Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Politics

Boycott of the 2026 World Cup over Greenland: German call and risks to European security

The president of St. Pauli suggested discussing a World Cup boycott after Trump's remarks about Greenland. Why this issue goes beyond sport and matters for Ukraine's security — briefly and without panic.

Oleg Bazylewicz

By Oleg Bazylewicz

January 24, 2026 · 2 min read

Boycott of the 2026 World Cup over Greenland: German call and risks to European security

What happened

Associated Press (AP), which quotes UNN, relays the words of Oke Göttlich — president of the German club St. Pauli and a member of the German Football Association. He called to consider a boycott of the 2026 World Cup (in the U.S., Canada and Mexico) in light of statements by U.S. President Donald Trump regarding Greenland. According to Göttlich, the potential threat is now greater than during the Olympic boycott in the 1980s, and this discussion needs to take place right now.

"What were the justifications for boycotting the Olympic Games in the 1980s? By my calculations, the potential threat now is greater than it was then. We need to have this discussion. Qatar was too political for everyone, and now we are completely apolitical? That is what worries me very, very, very much"

— Oke Göttlich, president of St. Pauli

Positions and opposition

AP notes that such calls are likely to meet resistance from official football institutions: the piece mentions German Football Association president Bernd Neuendorf and FIFA president Gianni Infantino as figures who are unlikely to support the idea of a boycott.

In German political circles the debate has intensified: Jürgen Hardt, spokesman for the CDU/CSU parliamentary group on foreign policy, did not rule out the possibility of such an initiative in response to U.S. plans regarding Greenland.

Why this matters for Europe and Ukraine

At first glance this is about sport, but the scope is broader. Statements about territorial control are not merely diplomatic rhetoric: they undermine the norms that guarantee sovereignty and stability in Europe. For Ukraine this is not an abstract threat: weakening international rules creates precedents that revisionist actors could exploit.

History shows: a boycott can be a tool of pressure or a symbolic gesture. It mobilizes public attention, but its effectiveness depends on the breadth of the coalition — political leaders, federations and fans must agree on the risks and benefits.

What next

The most likely scenario is a heated domestic debate in Germany and diplomatic consultations with partners. FIFA and national federations have material and reputational incentives to avoid a split. However, the very fact that the issue has been raised signals that sporting events can no longer be separated from geopolitics.

Questions to ponder: will countries turn words into coordinated action, or leave it at the level of statements — and how will the chosen path affect the unified system of international guarantees that also protect Ukraine.

Related

Latest

Business

EU Against Google: Why the Latest Fine Could Change More Than Previous Ones

# European Regulators Target Google Again — This Time Over Digital Markets Act Violations. What's Behind the Accusations and Why It Matters Beyond the Corporation European regulators have renewed their scrutiny of Google, this time focusing on alleged violations of the Digital Markets Act. The charges underscore Brussels' increasingly aggressive stance on big tech monopolies and what officials say are anticompetitive practices. The accusations center on how Google leverages its dominance across multiple digital services — from search to advertising to mobile platforms — to disadvantage competitors. Regulators claim the company is using its market power in ways that stifle innovation and limit consumer choice. The case carries significance far beyond Google itself. It signals how the EU is attempting to enforce its landmark Digital Markets Act, legislation designed to curb the gatekeeping power of tech giants. A potential penalty could set precedent for how other large technology companies face similar scrutiny. For consumers and smaller tech firms, the outcome could reshape the digital landscape by creating more room for competition. For Google, fines and operational restrictions could fundamentally alter its business model in Europe, the world's most stringent regulatory market. The case also reflects a broader geopolitical divide, with the EU pursuing a regulatory approach that contrasts sharply with the lighter-touch oversight favored in the United States.

May 26, 2026