IT’S NEVER JUST about the football. In Mexico, much of the build-up to the 23rd World Cup has centred around protesting teachers seeking a salary raise and the reversal of a pension law.

The protesters are threatening to shut down roads around the Azteca Stadium ahead of today’s World Cup opener between Mexico and South Africa. Thousands are also expected to march to highlight Mexico’s ‘disappeared’. Over 130,000 people have been officially recorded as missing in Mexico since the government launched new anti-drug operation in 2006.

It is not new for a host nation to use the World Cup as a platform for protest, and often, the tournament itself has been the source of the ire.

Ahead of the 2014 World Cup, Brazilians took the streets in 12 cities to march against the soaring cost of hosting the event. These protests, some of which turned violent, followed industrial action by teachers, bus drivers and museum staff.

Four years earlier, riot police were called in as South African workers protested against their wages and employment terms, while thousands marched against the soaring cost of hosting the tournament.

A policeman with detained protesters in front of the Moses Mabhida World Cup stadium in Durban in 2010. Alamy Stock Photo Alamy Stock Photo

Two decades previously, the rush to complete stadium works in Italy was attributed to the death of 24 construction workers, leading to protests ahead of the opening game of Italia ’90.

The issues around the 2022 World Cup in Qatar were varied, with the country’s human rights record and the conditions for migrant workers leading the conversation ahead of the tournament. In 2o21, an investigation by The Guardian reported that more than 6,500 migrant workers had died in Qatar in 10 years since it was awarded the tournament. 

On the pitch, the spotlight was focused on human rights issues in the country, leading to the ‘OneLove’ armband fiasco. The captains of seven European teams had planned to wear rainbow armbands in Qatar, a message of support for the LGBTQ community in a country where homosexuality is illegal. Following pressure from Fifa, who warned any captain wearing the armband would be booked at kick-off, the plans were scrapped.

Germany came up with an alternative gesture, covering their mouths in their team photo ahead of their opening game in Qatar. Germany captain Joshue Kimmich would later express his regret at that protest.

“We did not present an overall good picture as a team and country,” Kimmich told reporters in 2024. “We expressed political opinions and it took a bit away from the joy of the tournament.”

Kimmich isn’t the only German to soften his stance after making a strong political statement.

Paul Breitner was a member of the 1974 World Cup-winning West Germany team, scoring an equalising penalty in the Munich final against the Netherlands. In 1978, as West Germany prepared to defend their crown in Argentina, Breitner boycotted the tournament in protest of the military dictatorship wreaking havoc on the country.

Paul Breitner was a World Cup-winner with West Germany in 1974. Alamy Stock Photo Alamy Stock Photo

The defender/midfielder had a long history of political activism, joining the ’68ers’ protest movement of the late 60s and voicing his opinions on various social issues. However, when Real Madrid came calling in the 70s, he shrugged off the club’s associations with General Franco to sign up. 

Breitner returned to the West Germany squad in 1981 and scored their only goal in the 3-1 1982 final loss to Italy – making him one of only five players to score in two World Cup finals.

Dutch star Johaan Cruyff also didn’t travel to the ’78 tournament, with reports at the time linking his absence to his stance on the political situation in Argentina. Thirty years later, Cruyff would reveal the true reason was that his family had been the victims of an attempted kidnapping in the months leading up to the tournament.

The reasoning for a Brazil no-show in 1986 revolved around the fallout from a barbeque, where four players broke curfew. Only one – Renato Gaúcho – was punished by manager Telê Santana, who decided to axe the winger from his squad. In solidarity with his teammate, first-choice right-back Leandro refused to travel to the World Cup, despite pleas from his teammates to reconsider. Santana called up the uncapped Josimar, who went on to score two iconic World Cup goals against Northern Ireland and Poland, in what were his first two caps for Brazil.

Sometimes, organisations outside of football will step in to voice concerns around a World Cup. Keen to raise awareness of the situation in Argentina at that ’78 World Cup, Amnesty International led a campaign titled ‘Football Yes, Torture No’, encouraging travelling media to inform their readers of the human rights issues on the ground. Protests were held outside of Argentina, but none of the 15 foreign teams boycotted the tournament, which was won by the hosts.

Iran have a complex World Cup history and are already one of the defining stories of the latest edition, as they become the first nation to play in a World Cup hosted by a country they are currently at war with.

Protest Iranian flags are to be banned at games and despite playing their three group games in the US, the Iran squad will be based in Mexico, flying in the day before match days.

Iran were also under the spotlight in 2022. They went to Qatar as the Iranian government battled protests which followed the death of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini, who died in custody after being detained by Iran’s morality police for allegedly violating hijab rules.

Her death sparked months of protest and unrest, with rights groups claiming that Iranian defence forces killed over 550 protesters, including 68 children, and detained over 20,000.

Amid this unrest, Iran’s football team took to the pitch for a World Cup opener with England. None of the players sang the Iran national anthem as it was played at Doha’s Khalifa International Stadium. In the stands, some supporters booed the anthems, while others wept.

A week later, during Portugal’s Group H meeting with Uruguay, a protester ran onto the pitch carrying messages of support for Iran’s women, gay rights, and Ukraine.

He was subsequently banned from attending games, but other pitch invaders have had more luck.

During a 1982 group game, Kuwait players were incensed after France scored their fourth goal, having stopped playing after mistaking a whistle from the crowd as the referee blowing for a foul. Soon, Kuwaiti FA president Prince Fahid had made his way onto the pitch, threatened to pull the players from the game if the goal wasn’t disallowed. After a lengthy delay, the Soviet referee overruled his original decision. A small victory for Kuwait. France went on to win 4-1, while the referee Miroslav Stupar would be banned from officiating and Prince Fahid received a chunky fine.

In 1966, an entire continent agreed to boycott the World Cup. With Fifa deciding against awarding a single direct qualifying place for an African team, instead assigning them one shared slot with the Asian nations. The 15 eligible African nations reacted to this marginalisation by agreeing to boycott the ’66 World Cup in protest at the unfair hand they had been dealt.

Indeed, the first example of a World Cup boycott can be traced all the way back to the inaugural tournament, although the reasoning was rooted in simple logistics.

For the 1930 World Cup in Uruguay, there was no qualification, with all Fifa member nations invited to take part. Yet given the travel and expense involved, many turned down the opportunity to compete, leading to a 13-team tournament, won by the host nation.

Upset at the lack of European teams who travelled to the 1930 World Cup, Uruguay responded by boycotting the 1934 tournament in Italy. It remains the only time a defending World Cup champion didn’t participate in the next World Cup.

Ninety years later, the World Cup is more bloated, more box-office, and more controversial than ever before.