Iran is in talks with FIFA about moving its 2026 World Cup group-stage matches out of the United States and into Mexico, after Iranian football officials said the team’s safety could not be guaranteed amid the sharp escalation in tensions between Washington and Tehran. The issue has opened up an extraordinary dispute less than three months before the tournament is due to begin across the United States, Canada and Mexico, with Iran already scheduled to play two matches in Los Angeles and one in Seattle.
The concern centres on the fallout from recent US and Israeli strikes on Iran, and the wider political and military crisis that has followed. Iranian football federation president Mehdi Taj said his organisation was in discussions with FIFA about relocating the fixtures, arguing that the United States was no longer an appropriate venue for his country’s team. According to Reuters, Taj said the issue was driven by the inability to guarantee the security of players and staff, with Iran seeking to shift those games to Mexico instead.
Iran qualified for the 2026 World Cup from Asia and was placed in Group G at the finals draw, where it was scheduled to face Belgium, Egypt and New Zealand. Under the existing tournament plan, Iran’s group matches are due to be staged entirely in US cities, including Los Angeles and Seattle. The World Cup itself is set to run from 11 June to 19 July and will be co-hosted by the US, Mexico and Canada, making this the first men’s tournament to be shared by three nations.
What has turned a difficult diplomatic question into a live football issue is the growing uncertainty over whether Iran can or will play in the US at all. Reuters reported earlier this week that the Asian Football Confederation had received no official notification that Iran intended to withdraw from the tournament, despite increasingly forceful public statements from Iranian officials. That has left FIFA, continental officials and rival teams in a holding pattern, waiting for clarity from Tehran while trying to preserve a schedule that has already been locked in for months.
There have also been conflicting messages from the Iranian side. Iran’s sports minister Ahmad Donyamali was reported as saying that, “under no circumstances”, could the national team take part in a World Cup hosted in the United States after the recent military actions. Yet the AFC said the only body that can formally decide on participation is Iran’s football federation, and that it had been told Iran still intended to compete unless that position changed officially. In other words, the political rhetoric has been severe, but the football authorities have not yet taken the final administrative step of pulling out.
That gap between political statements and sporting procedure is why the relocation proposal has become so significant. Rather than walk away from the tournament entirely, Iran appears to be exploring whether it can remain in the World Cup while avoiding US territory for its fixtures. Reuters reported that Mexico’s president, Claudia Sheinbaum, said Mexico would be willing to host Iran’s matches if FIFA approved such a move. Her comments did not amount to a formal offer within FIFA’s structures, but they showed that at least one co-host nation is publicly open to a workaround.
Even so, the practical obstacles are immense. FIFA has not announced any change to the fixture list, and the organisation said it remained in contact with participating countries, including Iran. The tournament draw, venue allocations, ticketing plans, broadcast arrangements, team travel, training bases and security operations are all tied to the existing schedule. Moving even one team’s set of matches would have knock-on effects for other nations in the group and potentially beyond, especially if venue changes altered rest periods, transport plans or supporter allocations.
The Associated Press reported that FIFA had reaffirmed its commitment to the schedule announced in December 2025, while The Guardian said FIFA would not agree to move Iran’s games from the US to Mexico. Those reports suggest that, while discussions may be taking place, football’s governing body is wary of reopening a tournament plan that took years to construct. FIFA also has to consider the precedent that would be set if a qualified team could successfully pressure it into relocating matches because of a geopolitical crisis involving a host nation.
Still, the issue is not merely logistical. Iran’s national team has long carried political sensitivity far beyond football. The country has appeared at six World Cups, and its presence at major tournaments has often been accompanied by scrutiny over government policy, internal dissent and international relations. In recent years, the team has played under intense pressure, including during the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, when players were watched closely for how they responded to unrest at home. The current dispute is different in form but similar in scale, because once again Iran’s footballers are caught in the overlap between global sport and state conflict.
The US angle has made the story even more politically charged. Reuters reported that Donald Trump had made comments indicating that Iran’s attendance might not be safe, adding to the sense in Tehran that its team could not be properly protected on American soil. That fed directly into Mehdi Taj’s case for moving the fixtures. In a tournament built partly around the idea of North American unity and openness, the prospect of one of the qualified teams saying it cannot safely play in one of the host countries is a serious embarrassment for organisers, even if no formal change is ultimately made.
For Iran, the football implications are enormous. Qualification for the World Cup is one of the country’s few consistent sporting achievements on the global stage, and missing the finals would be a major national setback. If Iran withdrew, FIFA would face the problem of naming a replacement at short notice. Reuters said no formal notification of withdrawal had been received, but that possibility is already being discussed because of the worsening political climate. The idea of relocating matches to Mexico appears, at least for now, to be Tehran’s attempt to preserve participation without asking players and staff to travel into the US.
Mexico’s possible role is also noteworthy because the country is not a neutral bystander. It is one of the three co-hosts and already has its own tournament responsibilities, stadium allocations and operational commitments. Any decision to add Iran fixtures would have to fit within that wider framework. Sheinbaum’s remarks showed political willingness, but they did not solve the competitive and commercial questions that FIFA would have to answer before any switch could happen.
At present, the official position remains unchanged: Iran is still in the World Cup, its matches are still assigned to US venues, and FIFA has not sanctioned a move. But the episode has revealed just how fragile international tournament planning can become when war, diplomacy and sport collide. A World Cup that was meant to showcase the scale and reach of North American hosting now faces the prospect of one of its qualified teams effectively asking to bypass part of the host map altogether. Whether FIFA resists that pressure, or whether the political reality becomes too difficult to ignore, may be one of the most consequential decisions of the build-up to the 2026 tournament.
