Resolution Criteria
A country resolves YES if its national team officially withdraws from or is barred from competing in the 2026 FIFA World Cup. Non-participation due to failure to qualify does not count (resolves NO).
Background
The 2026 FIFA World Cup will be hosted across the United States, Canada, and Mexico. In January 2026, geopolitical tension around U.S. President Donald Trump’s renewed push to acquire Greenland triggered public and political calls in parts of Europe for a possible World Cup boycott. On January 17, 2026, Trump announced threatened 10% tariffs (rising to 25% later) on imports from Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Finland in connection with the Greenland dispute—though he later said the tariff plans were withdrawn/delayed following talks on a NATO-linked framework.
In Germany, a BILD/INSA poll reported 47% support for boycotting the tournament if the U.S. were to take control of Greenland. In the Netherlands, a petition has called on the KNVB to commit to withdrawing if the U.S. seizes Greenland.
Separately, Spanish officials raised the possibility of a boycott conditional on Israel qualifying and being allowed to participate. However, Israel later failed to qualify.
Clarifications
Update 2026-01-27 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Timing of resolution: The creator will wait until later in the summer 2026 competition before resolving countries that failed to qualify as NO, because replacement teams could potentially be added if qualified countries withdraw or are barred (similar to what happened at Euros 1992).
Update 2026-01-27 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator has clarified that while this market is primarily about politically motivated boycotts, it will also count cases where teams are barred or withdraw while citing other reasons (to avoid adjudicating broader international politics). Any withdrawal or barring after qualification will resolve YES, regardless of the stated reason.
1,000People are also trading
I’ve updated the market title to better align with the resolution criteria.
This market is primarily about politically motivated boycotts. However, to keep it manageable (and avoid adjudicating broader international politics), I’m also counting cases where qualified teams are barred or withdraw while citing other reasons.
@traders Please let me know if you think this slight reframing is unfair.
@GazDownright Wouldn't call this unfair, but it's a pretty different market now in my opinion [edit: I no longer stand by this opinion, see below]. It might have been a good idea to tag traders 48 hours in advance, before changung criteria. Doesn't affect my positions, so that's pretty much all I'll be able to contribute.
@Primer Thanks for engaging. Good call on givin a headsup in advance. But, for this one the main resolution criteria haven't changed, it's only the title to reflect them. Would you agree with that not being too big a change? The alternative would be to change the resolution criteria to match the title, which is more damaging. And if that's what people wan't, I think it'd be better to NA the market and set up anew.
@GazDownright Agreed. I'll admit I hadn't read the criteria and had assumed they had changed to reflect clarifications you gave in the comments. But I notice that's not true. The criteria were fine, but the title was misleading and is now corrected. Thanks for being proactive about this!
@Jack1 They failed to qualify. However, on previous occasions when countries have forfeited or been barred from entering a major competition (e.g. Euros 1992), a replacement has been found for that team. Thus, teams who failed to qualify, could be readded at a later stage.
So, ideally I'd like to wait until a point in time when it's no longer possible for this outcome.
@traders Does this seem fair?
@GazDownright Based on the criteria, is it right to think that even if a country withdraws for financial reasons, their answer will resolve yes?