boycott

One afternoon late August in a quiet Irish seaside town, a supermarket worker decided he could no longer separate his job from what he was seeing on his phone.

Images from Gaza, with neighbourhoods flattened and families buried, had followed him to the checkout counter.

At the time, Israel’s genocidal onslaught had killed more than 60,000 Palestinians.

His first act of protest was to quietly warn customers that some of the fruit and vegetables were sourced from Israel. Later, as people in Gaza starved, he refused to scan or sell Israeli-grown produce.

He could not, he said, “have that on my conscience”.

Within weeks, Tesco supermarket suspended him.

He requested anonymity following advice from his trade union.

In Newcastle, County Down, a town better known for its summer tourists than political protest, customers protested outside the store.

The local dispute became a test case: Can individual employees turn their moral outrage into workplace action?

Facing mounting backlash, Tesco reinstated him in January, moving him to a role where he no longer has to handle Israeli goods.

“I would encourage them to do it,” he said about other workers. “They have the backing of the unions and there’s a precedent set. They didn’t sack me; they shouldn’t be able to sack anyone else.

“And then, if we get enough people to do it, they can’t sell Israeli goods.”

“A genocide is still going on, they are slowly killing and starving people – we still need to be out, doing what we can.”

From shop floors to state policy

Across Europe, there is labour-led pressure to cease trade with Israel.

Unions in Ireland, the UK and Norway have passed motions stating that workers should not be compelled to handle Israeli goods.

Retail cooperatives, including Co-op UK and Italy’s Coop Alleanza 3.0, have removed some Israeli products in protest against the war in Gaza.

The campaigns raise questions about whether worker-led refusals can lead to state-level boycotts.

Activists say the strategy is rooted in history.

In 1984, workers at the Dunnes Stores retail chain in Ireland refused to handle goods from apartheid South Africa. The action lasted nearly three years and contributed to Ireland becoming the first country in Western Europe to ban trade with South Africa.

“The same can be done against the apartheid, genocidal state of Israel today,” said Damian Quinn, 33, of BDS Belfast.

The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement is a Palestinian-led campaign launched in 2005 that calls for economic and cultural boycotts of Israel until it complies with international law, including ending its occupation of Palestine.

“Where the state has failed in its obligation to prevent and punish the crime of genocide, citizens and workers across the world must refuse Israel and apply pressure on their governments to introduce legislation,” said Quinn.

That pressure, he said, takes the form of boycotting “complicit Israeli sporting, academic and cultural institutions”, as well as Israeli and international companies “engaged in violations of Palestinian human rights”.

The movement also seeks to “apply pressure on banks, local councils, universities, churches, pension funds and governments to do the same through divestment and sanctions”, he added.

Supporters argue that such pressure is beginning to shape state policy across Europe.

Spain and Slovenia have moved to restrict trade with Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank following sustained public protests and mounting political pressure. In August 2025, Slovenia’s government banned imports of goods produced in Israeli-occupied territories, becoming one of the first European states to adopt such a measure.

Spain followed suit later that year, with a decree banning the import of products from illegal Israeli settlements. The measure was formally enforced at the start of 2026.

Both countries’ centre-left governments have been outspoken critics of Israel’s conduct during the war, helping create the political conditions for legislative action.

In the Netherlands, a wave of pro-Palestinian campus protests and public demonstrations in 2025 shifted political discourse. Student demands for academic and trade disengagement became part of broader calls for national policy change.

Later that year, members of the Dutch parliament urged the government to ban imports from illegal Israeli settlements.

Meanwhile, Ireland is attempting to advance its Occupied Territories Bill, first introduced in 2018, which would prohibit trade in goods and services from illegal settlements in occupied Palestinian territory, including the West Bank.

Progress, however, has stalled despite unanimous backing in the lower house of Ireland’s parliament, the Dail.

Paul Murphy, an Irish pro-Palestine member of parliament who, in June, attempted to cross into Gaza, told Al Jazeera the delay amounts to “indirect pressure from Israel routed through the US”. He accused the government of “kicking the can down the road” as it seeks further legal advice.

Pro-Israel organisations are working to oppose initiatives that aim to pressure Israel economically.

B’nai B’rith International, a US-based group that says it strengthens “global Jewish life”, combats anti-Semitism and stands “unequivocally with the State of Israel”, decries the BDS movement. In July 2025, it submitted an 18-page memorandum to Irish lawmakers, warning the bill could pose risks for US companies operating in Ireland.

The memorandum argued that, if enacted, the bill could create conflicts with US federal anti-boycott laws, which prohibit US companies from participating in certain foreign-led boycotts – particularly those targeting Israel.

B’nai B’rith International also “vehemently condemns” the United Kingdom’s recognition of Palestinian statehood and has donated 200 softshell jackets to Israeli military personnel.

Critics say interventions of this kind go beyond advocacy and reflect coordinated efforts to influence European policymaking on Israel and Palestine from abroad.

While lobby groups publicly press their case, leaked documents, based on material from whistleblower site Distributed Denial of Secrets, suggest the Israeli state has also been directly involved in countering BDS campaigns across Europe.

A covert programme, jointly funded by the Israeli Ministries of Justice and of Strategic Affairs, reportedly hired law firms for 130,000 euros ($154,200) on assignments aimed at monitoring boycott-related movements.

Former Sinn Fein MEP Martina Anderson, who supports the BDS movement, previously accused Israeli advocacy organisations of attempting to silence critics of Israel through legal and political pressure.

According to the leaked documents cited by The Ditch, an Irish outlet, Israel hired a law firm to “investigate the steps open to Israel against Martina Anderson”.

She told Al Jazeera she stood by her criticism.

“As the chair of the Palestinian delegation in the European Parliament, I did my work diligently, as people who know me would expect me to do.

“I am proud to have been a thorn in the side of the Israeli state and its extensive lobbying machine, which works relentlessly to undermine Palestinian voices and to justify a brutal and oppressive rogue state.”

Pushback across Europe

In 2019, Germany’s parliament, the Bundestag, adopted a non-binding resolution condemning the BDS movement as anti-Semitic, calling for the withdrawal of public funding from groups that support it.

Observers say the vote has since been used to conflate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism.

The European Leadership Network (ELNET), a prominent pro-Israel advocacy organisation active across the continent, welcomed the move and said its German branch had urged further legislative steps.

Meanwhile, in the UK, ELNET has funded trips to Israel for Labour politicians and their staff.

Bridget Phillipson, now secretary of state for education, declared a 3,000-pound ($4,087) visit funded by ELNET for a member of her team.

A coworker of Wes Streeting named Anna Wilson also accepted a trip funded by ELNET. Streeting himself has visited Israel on a mission organised by the Labour Friends of Israel (LFI) group.

ELNET’s UK branch is directed by Joan Ryan, an ex-Labour MP and former LFI chair.

During the passage of a bill designed to prevent public bodies from pursuing their own boycotts, divestment or sanctions policies – the Labour Party imposed a three-line whip instructing MPs to vote against it. Phillipson and Streeting abstained.

The Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill was widely seen as an attempt to block local councils and public institutions from adopting BDS-style measures.

A vocal supporter of the legislation was Luke Akehurst, then director of the pro-Israel advocacy group, We Believe in Israel. In a statement carried by ELNET, he said it was “absurd” that local councils could “undermine the excellent relationship between the UK and Israel” through boycotts or divestment.

“We need the law changed to close this loophole,” he said, arguing that BDS initiatives by local authorities risked “importing the conflict into communities in the UK”.

The legislation was ultimately shelved when a general election was called in 2024. It formed part of broader legislative efforts in parts of Europe to limit BDS-linked boycotts.

Akehurst has since been elected as Labour MP for North Durham, having previously served on the party’s National Executive Committee.

United States Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has claimed that Washington engineered a dollar shortage in Iran to send the rial into freefall and cause protests on the streets.

In December and January, Iran was faced with one of the biggest antigovernment protests the country has seen since the Islamic revolution of 1979, prompted by the severe economic crisis.

Protests over soaring prices in Iran began with shopkeepers in Tehran who shuttered their shops and began demonstrating on December 28, 2025, after the rial plunged to a record low against the US dollar in late December. The protests then spread to other provinces of Iran.

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s government responded with force. More than 6,800 protesters, including at least 150 children, are thought to have been killed in a sweeping crackdown by the government on the protest movement.

So, how did Washington create a “dollar shortage” in Iran, ultimately causing the rial to tank? And what effect has that had on the Iranian people?

What is a ‘dollar shortage’?

A “dollar shortage” refers to when a country does not have enough US dollars to pay for things it needs from the rest of the world.

The US dollar is the main currency used in global trade, especially for oil, machinery and loan repayments, which means countries need a steady supply of it.

If exports fall and sanctions block access to the US financial system, dollars can become scarce. As a result, the local currency weakens, prices of imported goods rise, and inflation worsens.

In Iran, a “dollar shortage” was engineered by simultaneously blocking the two main channels of foreign exchange (FX) inflow: Oil exports and international banking access, said Mohammad Reza Farzanegan, an economist at Germany’s Marburg University. The US did this by imposing sanctions on Iranian oil, meaning anyone buying or selling it would be subject to punitive measures.

Given Iran’s dependence on oil for revenue, economic sanctions on its oil can create a severe FX constraint.

“By using secondary sanctions to threaten any global entity trading in dollars with Iran, the US traps Iran’s existing reserves abroad and prevents new dollars from entering the domestic market,” Farzanegan told Al Jazeera.

What has US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said?

Replying to a query about dealing with Iran at a Congressional hearing last week, Treasury Secretary Bessent described the US strategy to send the Iranian currency plunging.

“What we [have done] at Treasury is created a dollar shortage in the country,” Bessent said, adding that the strategy came to a “grand culmination in December, when one of the largest banks in Iran went under … the Iranian currency went into freefall, inflation exploded, and hence, we have seen the Iranian people out on the street.

“We have seen the Iranian leadership wiring money out of the country like crazy,” Bessent added. “So the rats are leaving the ship, and that is a good sign that they know the end may be near.”

Before this, speaking with Fox News at the World Economic Forum last month in Davos, Bessent explained the role US sanctions played in driving the recent nationwide protests.

“President Trump ordered Treasury … to put maximum pressure on Iran, and it’s worked,” he said. “Because in December, their economy collapsed. They are not able to get imports, and this is why the people took to the streets.”

In both instances, Bessent referred to his earlier remarks at the Economic Club of New York, in March last year, when he outlined how the White House would leverage President Donald Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign to collapse Iran’s economy.

In his address there, Bessent said the US “elevated a sanctions campaign against [Iran’s] export infrastructure, targeting all stages of Iran’s oil supply chain”, coupled with “vigorous government engagement and private sector outreach” to “close off Iran’s access to the international financial system”.

What effect did the dollar shortage have in Iran?

In January, the Iranian rial was trading at 1.5 million to the dollar – a sharp decline from about 700,000 a year earlier in January 2025 and about 900,000 in mid-2025. The plummeting currency triggered steep inflation, with food prices an average of 72 percent higher than last year.

In 2018, during his first presidency, Trump withdrew from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, a deal between Iran and global powers limiting Tehran’s nuclear programme in return for sanctions relief.

Since re-election last January, President Trump has doubled down on his so-called “maximum pressure” to cripple Iran’s economy and corner Tehran to renegotiate its nuclear and regional policies. Last month, Trump threatened a 25 percent tariff on countries doing business with Iran.

Through the rigorous blocking of Iran from the global financial system by creating a dollar shortage, the US pushed Tehran towards a severe “import compression, [and as a result, Iran] cannot pay for the intermediate goods and machinery required for domestic production”, said Farzanegan, the economist.

The US strategy, he said, “is particularly devastating because it leverages commercial risk management against humanitarian needs”. In short, Washington’s strategy “makes the small Iranian market a commercial liability” for any company, even if they are only dealing with medicine, for instance, Farzanegan added.

A research paper published by Farzanegan and Iranian American economist Nader Habibi last year found that the size of Iran’s middle class would have expanded by an annual average of approximately 17 percentage points, between 2012 and 2019, if it were not for US action.

In 2019, the estimated size of loss in the middle-class share of the population in Iran was 28 percentage points, the research found.

“People lost their purchasing power, and savings were wiped out,” the economist told Al Jazeera. “This is a long-term destruction of the country’s human capital.”

Besides the US action is the existing vulnerability of Iran’s economic structure, with factors like long-term mismanagement, high rates of corruption and over-reliance on oil revenues making it fragile.

While the US sanctions created external shock, a lack of domestic structural reforms left the government with “no fiscal space to cushion the blow”.

What is the US’s endgame here – and will it succeed?

Bessent’s admission that Washington deliberately created a “dollar shortage” signals the US’s shift towards a total economic warfare narrative.

“This is economic statecraft; no shots fired,” Bessent said at the WEF in Davos last month.

“This admission may complicate the US’s diplomatic standing, as it confirms that the humanitarian channels for food and medicine are often rendered useless if the entire banking system is being targeted for collapse,” Farzanegan said.

Bruce Fein, a former US associate deputy attorney general who specialises in constitutional and international law, told Al Jazeera that this type of economic coercion is “as common as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west”, pointing to economic sanctions against Russia, Cuba, North Korea, China and Myanmar.

However, unlike in other cases where the US has applied economic pressure, Farzanegan said Iran’s case is “a unique experiment due to the duration and intensity of the pressure”.

Unlike Russia, which has a more diversified export base and larger reserves, Iran has been facing varied forms of sanctions for decades since the supreme leader took power in 1979.

“Iran has a sophisticated internal mechanism for sanctions circumvention that makes the ‘dollar shortage’ a game of cat-and-mouse rather than a one-time shock,” the economist said.

With a US armada currently stationed in the Arabian Sea, the US and Iran are in talks to defuse tensions. The US wants three key things from Iran: To stop enriching uranium as part of its nuclear programme, to get rid of its ballistic missiles and to stop arming non-state actors in the region.

Ultimately, observers say, the US wants regime change in Iran.

But Fein said his experience shows that economic sanctions alone “seldom, if ever, topple regimes … Regime change comes externally only with the use of military force.

“Iran’s dollar shortage will not oust the mullahs or Revolutionary Guard,” he said, referring to Iran’s current administrative structure.

The impoverishment of Iranians will diminish, Fein told Al Jazeera, “rather than promote the likelihood of a successful revolution because day-to-day survival will be the priority”.

On January 6, a group of 25 British members of parliament tabled a motion urging global sporting authorities to consider excluding the United States from hosting the 2026 FIFA World Cup until it demonstrates compliance with international law. It followed weeks of mounting pressure across Europe over the political climate surrounding a tournament expected to draw millions of viewers and symbolising international cooperation.

Dutch broadcaster Teun van de Keuken has backed a public petition urging withdrawal from the competition while French parliamentarian Eric Coquerel has warned that participation risks legitimising policies he argued undermine international human rights standards.

Much of the scrutiny has focused on US President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown and broad assaults on civil liberties. The deaths of Minneapolis residents Renee Nicole Good and Alex Pretti during immigration enforcement operations in January triggered nationwide outrage and protests. In 2026, at least eight people have been shot by federal immigration agents or died in immigration detention.

These developments are serious, but they point to a broader question about power and accountability – one that extends beyond domestic repression and into the consequences of US policy abroad. The war in Gaza represents a far deeper emergency.

For decades, Washington has served as Israel’s most influential international ally, providing diplomatic protection, political backing and roughly $3.8bn in annual military assistance. That partnership finances and shapes the destruction now unfolding across Palestinian territory.

Since the day the war began on October 7, 2023, Israel’s military has killed more than 72,032 Palestinians, wounded 171,661 and destroyed or severely damaged the vast majority of Gaza’s housing, schools, hospitals, water systems and other basic civilian infrastructure. Nearly 90 percent of Gaza’s population – about 1.9 million people – has been displaced, many repeatedly, as bombardments move across the enclave. Meanwhile, Israeli forces and armed settlers have intensified raids, farmland seizures and sweeping movement restrictions across Palestinian communities in Jenin, Nablus, Hebron and the Jordan Valley in the occupied West Bank.

By many accounts, Israel is carrying out a genocide.

Across the African continent, this grave assault carries profound historical resonance because organised sports competitions have often been inseparable from liberation struggles.

On June 16, 1976, 15-year-old Hastings Ndlovu joined thousands of schoolchildren in Soweto protesting against the imposition of Afrikaans language education. By the end of the day, he was dead, shot by police as officers opened fire on unarmed pupils marching through their own neighbourhoods.

Hastings was murdered by a regime that viewed African children as political threats rather than students or even human beings. Police killed 575 youths and injured thousands more that day, yet the bloodshed failed to disrupt diplomatic and sporting relations between the apartheid state and several Western allies.

Weeks later, as families buried their children in solemn funerals, New Zealand’s national rugby team, the All Blacks, landed at Jan Smuts Airport in Johannesburg on June 25, ready to play competitive matches inside the segregated republic.

The tour provoked fury among many young African governments. Within weeks, the backlash reached the 1976 Montreal Olympic Games in Canada. Twenty-two African countries withdrew after President Michael Morris and the International Olympic Committee chose not to act against New Zealand.

Athletes who had trained for years packed their bags and left the Olympic Village in Montreal, some after already competing. Morocco, Cameroon, Tunisia and Egypt began the Games before withdrawing as their delegations were urgently recalled by their governments.

Nigeria, Ghana and Zambia pulled out of the men’s football tournament, collapsing first-round fixtures at Montreal’s Olympic Stadium and Varsity Stadium mid-competition. Television viewers worldwide watched empty lanes and abandoned tracks replace what had been promoted as a global event. More than 700 athletes forfeited Olympic participation, including world-record holders Filbert Bayi (1,500 metres) of Tanzania and Uganda’s John Akii-Bua (400-metre hurdles).

African leaders recognised the scale of the decision. Nonetheless, they concluded that their countries’ Olympic participation would give “comfort and respectability to the South African racist regime and encourage it to continue to defy world opinion”.

That moment offers a defining lesson for 2026: Boycotts come at a cost. They demand sacrifice, coordination and political courage. History shows that collective refusal can redirect global attention and force both institutions and spectators to confront injustices they might otherwise overlook.

Nearly five decades later, Gaza presents a similar test amid a deepening and seemingly endless catastrophe.

Take what happened to Sidra Hassouna, a seven-year-old Palestinian girl from Rafah.

She was killed along with members of her family during an Israeli air strike on February 23, 2024, when the home they had sought shelter in was struck amid intense shelling in southern Gaza.

Sidra’s story mirrors thousands of others and reveals the same truth: childhoods erased by bombardment.

These killings have unfolded before a global audience. Unlike apartheid South Africa, Israel’s destruction of Gaza is being transmitted in real time, largely through Palestinian journalists and citizen reporters, nearly 300 of whom have been killed by Israeli air and artillery strikes.

At the same time, the US continues supplying Israel with weapons, diplomatic cover and veto protection at the United Nations. While Trump’s civil liberties abuses are serious, they are not comparable in scale to the devastation endured by Palestinians in Gaza.

The humanitarian toll is measured in destroyed hospitals, displaced families, enforced hunger and children buried beneath collapsed apartment blocks.

The central question now is whether football can present itself as a weeks-long celebration of sporting prowess across 16 host cities in the United States, Canada and Mexico from June to July while the United States continues to sustain large-scale civilian destruction abroad.

African political memory understands these stakes. The continent has witnessed how stadiums and international competitions can project political approval and how withdrawal can destroy that image.

A coordinated boycott would require joint decisions by governments representing the qualified teams – Morocco, Senegal, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Ivory Coast, Ghana, Cape Verde and South Africa – supported by the African Union, regional institutions and the Confederation of African Football.

The consequences would be immediate.

The tournament would lose its claim to global inclusivity, and corporate sponsors would be compelled to confront questions they have long avoided.

Most importantly, international attention would shift.

Boycotts do not end conflicts overnight. They accomplish something different: They remove the comfort of pretending injustice does not exist. The 1976 Olympic withdrawal did not dismantle apartheid instantly, but it accelerated isolation and broadened the universal coalition opposing it.

At present, FIFA’s longstanding political contradictions intensify the need for external pressure. At the World Cup draw in Washington, DC, on December 5, its president, Gianni Infantino, awarded Trump a “peace prize” for his efforts to “promote peace and unity around the world”.

The organisation cannot portray itself as a neutral body while extending symbolic legitimacy to a leader overseeing mass civilian death.

In that context, nonparticipation becomes a critical moral position.

It would not immediately end Gaza’s calamity, but it would challenge US support for the sustained military onslaught and honour children like Hastings and Sidra.

Although separated by decades and continents, their lives reveal a shared historical pattern: Children suffer first when imperial systems determine that Black and Brown lives hold absolutely no value.

Africa’s stand in 1976 reshaped international resistance to apartheid. A comparable decision in 2026 could strengthen opposition to contemporary systems of domination and signal to families in Gaza that their suffering is recognised across the continent.

History remembers those who reject injustice – and who choose comfort while children die under relentless air strikes and occupation.

If African teams compete in the 2026 World Cup as if nothing is happening in Gaza City, Rafah, Khan Younis, Jenin and Hebron, their involvement risks legitimising colonial power structures.

While European critics urge authorities to exclude the US, our history demands a complete withdrawal.

Football cannot be played on the graves of Palestinian martyrs.

Africa must boycott the 2026 World Cup.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

Pakistan’s decision to boycott their T20 World Cup game against India has been termed a political move, with cricketers and politicians in both countries and around the world urging the International Cricket Council (ICC) to resolve the dispute.

The Pakistani government on Sunday issued a statement saying its men’s cricket team will participate in the global tournament but will not take the field in the match against archrivals India on February 15.

In a swift response, the ICC was critical of Pakistan’s move of “selective participation” and asked the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) to consider the “significant and long-term implications” of its decision.

A decades-old political rift between the two nuclear-armed countries is blamed for their frosty sporting ties.

Pakistan was carved out of India in 1947, resulting in a bloody division of the subcontinent by the colonial British. Over the past 78 years, the nations have fought four wars, exchanged countless skirmishes and remained at odds primarily over the disputed Kashmir region that both claim in entirety but administer parts of.

The South Asian archrivals returned from the brink of an all-out war in May, when both countries clashed at their shared border before an internationally-brokered ceasefire.

An official of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) has supported the ICC’s statement asking Pakistan to reconsider the move.

“The ICC has issued a big statement, they have spoken about sportsmanship,” BCCI’s Vice President Rajeev Shukla told the ANI news agency in India.

“We completely agree with the ICC. BCCI won’t make any comments on it until we speak with the ICC.”

However, former cricketers and politicians have called upon the ICC to act as a mediator between both countries’ cricket boards.

“Cricket can open doors when politics closes them,” former Pakistan captain Shahid Afridi wrote on X.

He urged the ICC to “lead and prove through decisions, not statements, that it is impartial, independent and fair to every member.”

‘Sport has been politicised’

Prominent Indian politician Shashi Tharoor was critical of the politicisation of cricket, and slammed the BCCI’s decision to expel Bangladeshi fast bowler Mustafizur Rahman from the Indian Premier League in January.

“It is pretty disgraceful that sport has been politicised in this way on both sides,” he told reporters in New Delhi.

“I don’t think that Mustafizur should have been denied his contract to play in Kolkata. It was most unfortunate. [An] intrusion of politics. I think the Bangladeshi reaction was an overreaction, but it is also a reflection of the same, and Pakistan is trying to show its solidarity with Bangladesh. ”

Tharoor, who is a member of India’s main opposition party, said the situation was “spiralling out of control”.

“Sports, especially a sport like cricket which means so much to all the people, should be a means of bringing us together at least on the playing field, rather than allowing this to go on like this,” he said.

The 69-year-old, who is also an author of several books on history and politics, called on the ICC to help mend the ties.

“This is now a wake-up call for all concerned to contact each other on an emergency basis. The ICC could be the platform for it. Just say, ‘Let’s call off this nonsense’. You can’t go on like this forever.”

Pakistan’s decision, which came six days before the start of the World Cup, has cast a shadow on the marquee fixture of the group stage.

India and Pakistan were scheduled to play in Colombo on February 15 in a game that attracts millions of viewers from across the world and is seen as a major revenue-generating fixture for the tournament’s organisers and sponsors.

Outspoken former Pakistan captain Rashid Latif said Pakistan could face sanctions from the ICC, but such a move would be hypocritical as teams have boycotted games at previous World Cups.

“Where was ICC when Australia and West Indies forfeited their matches in 1996; England refusing to travel to Harare and New Zealand to Nairobi in 2003,” he said on X.

Latif, who played 37 Tests and 166 one-day internationals (ODIs), feared that Pakistan may be sanctioned by the ICC.

“They [Pakistan] don’t seem to care about it,” he said.

‘Would Pakistan refuse to play the final?’

Should Pakistan keep their word and boycott the group game, they will forfeit two points, which could have an impact on their standings in Group A.

Pakistan and India could meet again in the tournament, in the final on March 8, but with the multiple stages of progress between the group game and the final, it is unclear how that match would pan out.

Former England captain Kevin Pietersen questioned whether Pakistan would boycott the tournament decider as well.

“Would Pakistan refuse to play the World Cup final?” he asked.

Cricketers from across the border condemned Pakistan’s boycott of the game.

“This isn’t about guts at all, this is about foolishness,” Madan Lal, a former Test cricketer and coach, told Indian media.

“Because Pakistan wants to show India down, that’s why they’re taking all these decisions. That’s the reason their growth isn’t happening, either. If you keep looking at others, what will you do for your own growth?”

Indian cricket writer and commentator Harsha Bhogle said the boycott could deal a financial blow to Pakistan cricket.

“If there is an inevitable reduction in the ICC’s revenue caused by Pakistan’s forfeit and future uncertainty, the least affected countries, given other strong sources of revenue, will be India, Australia and England,” he said in a social media post.

“The most affected will be those completely reliant on revenues from the ICC; not just the smaller and associate nations but also the West Indies, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and…… Pakistan!”

Pakistan will open their T20 World Cup campaign on the opening day, February 7, against the Netherlands in Colombo.

The 2009 champions will play all their games, including any Super 8 fixtures and knockouts, in Sri Lanka.

This follows an ICC-brokered agreement between the PCB and the BCCI in December 2024 that allows both teams to play their games at a neutral venue when the neighbour hosts an ICC event.

Pakistan’s remaining Group A fixtures are against the United States on February 10 and against Namibia on February 18.

BREAKINGBREAKING,

This is a breaking news story, more details to follow.

Pakistan’s cricket team has been cleared to participate in the ICC T20 World Cup 2026 but will not play its game against India, the government of Pakistan said in a statement.

“The Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan grants approval to the Pakistan Cricket Team to participate in the ICC World T20 2026, however, the Pakistan Cricket Team shall not take the field in the match scheduled on 15th February 2026 against India,” the statement said on Sunday.

The T20 World Cup, co-hosted by India and Sri Lanka, features 20 nations and begins on Saturday.

Pakistan are drawn in Group A along with India, Namibia, Netherlands and US, and are playing all their matches in Sri Lanka. Pakistan’s first match on Saturday is against Netherlands at the Sinhalese Sports Club Cricket Ground in the Sri Lankan capital, Colombo.

If Pakistan boycotts their match against India, they will forfeit two points.

More to follow…

German football federation confirms it met to discuss a boycott of the FIFA 2026 World Cup, which is co-hosted by the US.

The German football federation has ruled out a boycott of the World Cup despite calls from within to send a message to United States President Donald Trump.

“We believe in the unifying power of sport and the global impact that a FIFA World Cup can have, the federation said in a statement issued late on Friday. “Our goal is to strengthen this positive force – not to prevent it.”

The federation, known as the DFB, said its executive committee met and discussed the option of a boycott of the tournament in the United States, Canada and Mexico, a consideration first proposed last week by DFB Vice President Oke Gottlich.

Gottlich, who is also the president of Bundesliga club St Pauli, referred to Trump’s recent actions and statements and said it was time to “seriously consider” a boycott.

In what appears to be a public rebuke to Gottlich, however, the DFB said “debates on sports policy should be conducted internally and not in public”.

The DFB said a boycott “is not currently under consideration. The DFB is in contact with representatives from politics, security, business, and sports in preparation for the tournament” from June 11-July 19.

Trump has sown discord in Europe with his takeover bid for Greenland and threats to impose tariffs on European countries that opposed it, while US actions in Venezuela and at home in dealing with protests in American cities have also raised alarm.

Former FIFA president Sepp Blatter last week advised fans to stay away from the tournament.

When president, however, Blatter opposed calls to boycott the 2018 World Cup in Russia over concerns about Ukraine.

“Football can not be boycotted in any country,” he said at the time.

Ahead of this summer’s tournament, fans have concerns about high ticket prices, while travel bans imposed by the Trump administration could also prohibit supporters from some competing nations from attending.

Germany’s team, at least, will be there.

“We want to compete fairly against the other qualified teams next summer,” the DFB said. “And we want fans worldwide to celebrate a peaceful festival of football in the stadiums and at fan zones – just as we experienced at the 2024 European Championship in our own country.”

From Kevin Baxter: A growing number of international leaders are suggesting it’s time to reconsider the idea of playing the World Cup in the United States this summer.

Oke Gottlich, vice president of the German Football Assn., told a German newspaper last week that he wants to discuss a boycott of the tournament, much like the U.S.-led boycott of the 1980 Moscow Olympics after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

“By my reckoning,” Gottlich said, “the potential threat is greater now than it was then. We need to have this discussion.”

Politicians in Britain and France had already raised the idea of a World Cup boycott. But now the whispers are growing into a chorus.

Nearly two dozen European football association heads held informal talks in Budapest last week to discuss their participation in the World Cup. A veteran coach of several African national teams urged a boycott, and a United Nations diplomat and international law expert has canceled his World Cup tickets, fearing for his safety in the U.S. amid violent federal immigration crackdowns in Minnesota and other cities throughout the United States.

“ICE may decide that I am a gang member and I’ll be locked in prison for a year with no charges, no hearing, no trial, no right to consult a lawyer, no phone call,” Mohamad Safa, the Lebanese-born executive director of the U.N. organization Patriotic Vision, wrote in a social media post.

Continue reading here

From Ryan Kartje: Entering a particularly consequential season for coach Lincoln Riley at USC, a brutal Big Ten slate won’t cut the Trojans or their coach any slack in 2026.

That much was clear long before the Big Ten officially released its schedule for next season Tuesday. USC already knew it would face the conference’s top three teams from a season ago (Indiana, Ohio State and Oregon). But the official unveiling of the slate would further solidify just how grueling the climb could be for USC next season.

Oregon will face Portland State, an FCS team, a week before coming to USC on Sept. 26. Ohio State will have a bye week before its Halloween meeting with USC at the Coliseum, and so will the defending champ, Indiana, which USC will face in Bloomington on Nov. 14.

Continue reading here

USC 2026 football schedule
Times TBA

Aug. 29: TBA
Sept. 5: vs. Fresno State
Sept. 12: vs. Louisiana
Sept. 19: at Rutgers
Sept. 26: vs. Oregon
Oct. 3: vs. Washington
Oct. 10: at Penn State
Oct. 17: BYE
Oct. 24: at Wisconsin
Oct. 31: vs. Ohio State
Nov. 7: BYE
Nov. 14: at Indiana
Nov. 21: vs. Maryland
Nov. 28: at UCLA

From Anthony Solorzano: The Big Ten Conference announced on Tuesday the opponents new head coach Bob Chesney and the Bruins will face during the 2026 season.

Whether the games will be played at the Rose Bowl or SoFi Stadium remains to be determined, but the Bruins will not be suiting up against Curt Cignetti and defending national champion Indiana.

UCLA will hard launch the Chesney era on the road against rival California on Sept. 5 at Memorial Stadium in Berkeley.

Continue reading here

2026 UCLA football schedule
Times TBA

Sept. 5: at California
Sept. 12: vs. San Diego State
Sept. 19: vs. Purdue
Sept. 26: at Maryland
Oct. 3: BYE
Oct. 10: at Oregon
Oct. 17: vs. Wisconsin
Oct. 24: vs. Michigan State
Oct. 31: vs. Nevada
Nov. 7: at Minnesota
Nov. 14: vs. Illinois
Nov. 21: at Michigan
Nov. 28: vs. USC

Why did Mike McDaniel choose the Chargers?

Just like his famously inventive offenses, Mike McDaniel had many options.

He interviewed for several head coaching jobs after his four-year tenure in charge of the Miami Dolphins ended this month, and he could have been an offensive coordinator pretty much anywhere he pleased.

McDaniel still wants to be a head coach again someday, but he chose to join the Chargers alongside Jim Harbaugh and Justin Herbert because the combination of time, place and personnel seemed perfect for this idiosyncratic coach who also happens to be one of the top offensive minds in football.

Continue reading here

Super Bowl Sunday

Sunday, Feb. 8
at Santa Clara
Seattle vs. New England
3:30 p.m. PT, NBC, Peacock, Telemundo, KLAC AM 570
Halftime show: Bad Bunny
National anthem: Charlie Puth
Odds: Seahawks favored by 4.5 points
Over/Under: 45.5 points

Clippers defeat the Jazz

Kawhi Leonard scored 21 points, James Harden had 16 points and 10 assists, and the Clippers beat the Utah Jazz 111-99 on Tuesday night for their ninth win in 10 games.

Leonard has scored at least 20 points in 25 consecutive games. He joins Bob McAdoo, World B. Free and Blake Griffin as the only players in franchise history with such a streak.

Kris Dunn added 14 points and a season-best five steals for the Clippers (22-24), who have the best record in the NBA since Christmas. They have won 16 of their last 19 games — immediately after going 3-16 in their previous 19.

The Clippers took control during a 10-2 run in the third quarter powered powered by Dunn’s two steals and layups, along with a three-pointer that made it 73-61. They led by double figures the rest of the way.

Continue reading here

Clippers box score

NBA standings

Kings’ win streak reaches three

Anton Forsberg made 26 saves and the Kings beat the Red Wings 3-1 on Tuesday night as Detroit winger Patrick Kane moved into a tie with Dallas’ Mike Modano as the highest-scoring American-born players in NHL history.

Kane matched Modano by recording his 1,374th point on an assist on a goal by Alex DeBrincat late in the third period. He accomplished the feat just a couple of months after turning 37, while Modano was 40 when he scored a goal to register point No. 1,374. For his career, Kane has 500 goals and 874 assists in 1,341 NHL regular-season games. Modano retired in 2011 with 561 goals and 813 assists in 1,499 games.

Samuel Helenius, Andrei Kuzmenko and Corey Perry scored for the Kings, who won their third straight game.

Continue reading here

Kings summary

NHL standings

This day in sports history

1901 — The American League is founded. The league plans for a 140-game schedule, set player rosters at 14 and recognizes the Players Protective Association, the players’ union.

1943 — Max Bentley of the Chicago Blackhawks has four goals and three assists in a 10-1 rout of the New York Rangers. Bentley scored all four goals and an assist in the third period. Max’s brother, Doug, has four assists in the third period.

1949 — Monte Irvin and Ford Smith are signed by the New York Giants. They are the first Black players to sign with the club.

1984 — Wayne Gretzky’s record 51-game scoring streak is halted as the Kings post a 4-2 victory. Over the 51 games, Gretzky scored 61 goals and had 92 assists.

1990 — The San Francisco 49ers beat the Denver Broncos 55-10 in the most lopsided Super Bowl. The 49ers are the first repeat NFL champion in a decade and tie the Pittsburgh Steelers with four Super Bowl wins.

1992 — Brett Hull becomes the second player in NHL history to score 50 goals in 50 games more than once in a career when the St. Louis Blues tie the Kings 3-3.

2001 — Baltimore’s brazen defense backs up its bragging by beating the New York Giants 34-7 in the Super Bowl. The Ravens intercept Kerry Collins four times, the final pick returned 49 yards for a touchdown by Duane Starks.

2006 — Amelie Mauresmo wins her first Grand Slam singles title when Justine Henin-Hardenne retires in the second set of their Australian Open final because of stomach pain. Mauresmo led 6-1, 2-0.

2007 — Roger Federer captures his 10th Grand Slam singles title without dropping a set at the Australian Open, beating Fernando Gonzalez 7-6 (2), 6-4, 6-4.

2012 — Towson ends its NCAA record 41-game losing streak with a 66-61 victory over North Carolina Wilmington. The victory is the first career win at Towson for coach Pat Skerry and the Tigers’ first win since a win at La Salle on Dec. 29, 2010.

2014 — Calling the NCAA a dictatorship, Northwestern quarterback Kain Colter and the United Steelworkers announce plans to form the first labor union for college athletes. Colter details the College Athletes Players Assn. at a news conference in Chicago, flanked by leaders of Steelworkers union that agree to pay legal bills for the effort.

2017 — Serena Williams wins her record 23rd Grand Slam singles title with a 6-4, 6-4 victory over her older sister Venus in the Australian Open final.

2017 — Arrogate beats California Chrome again, winning the $12 million Pegasus World Cup in his rival’s last race before retirement.

2018 — Australian Open Men’s Tennis: Roger Federer beats Marin Čilic 6-2, 6-7, 6-3, 3-6, 6-1 to win his record 20th Grand Slam title.

Compiled by the Associated Press

Until next time…

That concludes today’s newsletter. If you have any feedback, ideas for improvement or things you’d like to see, email me at houston.mitchell@latimes.com. To get this newsletter in your inbox, click here.

A decision on whether Pakistan will boycott next month’s men’s T20 World Cup is set to be made by early next week.

Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) chair Mohsin Naqvi held talks with the country’s prime minister, Shahbaz Sharif, on Monday to discuss their participation in light of Bangladesh’s withdrawal.

The International Cricket Council (ICC) replaced Bangladesh with Scotland on Saturday for the tournament which is being co-hosted by India and Sri Lanka between 7 February and 8 March.

Naqvi said in a post on X, external he had “a productive meeting” with Sharif where he “briefed him on the ICC matter”.

“He [Sharif] directed that we resolve it while keeping all options on the table,” Naqvi said.

“It was agreed that the final decision will be taken either on Friday or next Monday.”

BBC Sport understands that in addition to a full boycott of the tournament Pakistan officials are considering just boycotting their match against India.

Pakistan are due to play India at the T20 World Cup in Colombo, Sri Lanka, on 15 February in accordance with an agreement signed last year saying the two countries will play at neutral venues whenever one of them hosts an ICC event.

Political tensions mean the two countries have not faced each other outside men’s major tournaments since 2013, while India have not played in Pakistan since 2008.

The ICC has been approached for comment.

Pakistan’s response comes after the Bangladesh Cricket Board (BCB) had asked for their World Cup fixtures to be switched from India citing safety concerns.

There has been growing tensions between the countries and Bangladesh requested their games were played in Sri Lanka, which is co-hosting the tournament, instead.

The ICC rejected Bangladesh’s request, saying there was an “absence of any credible security threat” before the BCB reaffirmed its position.

BBC Sport understands Pakistan supported Bangladesh’s position in an emergency ICC board meeting held last Wednesday.

In a statement released last Saturday, in which they announced the decision to replace Bangladesh with Scotland, the ICC said it had “engaged with the BCB through multiple rounds of dialogue conducted in a transparent and constructive manner”.

“In light of these findings, and after careful consideration of the broader implications, the ICC determined that it was not appropriate to amend the published event schedule,” the ICC statement added.

The ICC also said it was keen not to establish “precedents that could undermine the neutrality and fairness of ICC events”.

This month, the Board of Control for Cricket in India told Indian Premier League (IPL) franchise Kolkata Knight Riders to drop Bangladesh cricketer Mustafizur Rahman because of political tensions.