Steve Bloomfield, writing for The Observer, argues that while the Israeli 'national' team continues to compete on the global stage as if nothing were happening, the Palestinian Football Association’s repeated calls for suspension have been ignored, exposing football’s double standards.

Back in 2022, just four days after the war in Ukraine started, FIFA and UEFA moved swiftly to exclude all Russian sides from their tournaments. At the time, they declared that football was “fully united in solidarity” with Ukrainians.

Fast forward 700 days into "Israel’s" war on Gaza, and the contrast could not be starker. Today, "Israel’s" men’s team will face Moldova in a World Cup qualifier, stark proof that the sport has not shown the same solidarity to Palestinians.

In the world of football, 'Israel' carries on unchallenged

At the outset, some argued there was a distinction between the war in Ukraine and "Israel’s" so-called retaliation to October 7 event. Yet Gaza’s devastation quickly surpassed any claim of proportionality.

Nearly two years on, "Israel’s" bombardment has killed more than 63,000 Palestinians, the majority of them women and children. Every week brings new atrocities, the murder of journalists, the destruction of cafes, the shooting of starving people lining up for food.

Related News

UEFA delays vote to suspend 'Israel' after US introduces Gaza deal

UN experts press FIFA, UEFA to suspend 'Israel' over genocide in Gaza

The International Criminal Court has charged "Israel’s" prime minister with war crimes, including the use of starvation as a weapon and the deliberate targeting of civilians. Leading human rights organisations and genocide scholars have gone further, accusing "Israel" of genocide.

And yet, in the world of football, "Israel" carries on unchallenged. Despite multiple appeals, FIFA has stalled. When pressed for comment, the organisation declined to respond, Bloomfield underlined. Even UEFA’s rare acknowledgment, a vague tweet noting the killing of Palestinian footballer Suleiman al-Obeid, killed while queuing for food, was so evasive that Liverpool’s Mohamed Salah publicly demanded, “Can you tell us how he died, where, and why?”

Football must show the bravery that governments lack

The swiftness with which Russia was punished, as per the author, had little to do with principle. European teams, backed by their governments, refused to play Russia. Poland, scheduled to face them in a World Cup qualifier, was among the first to draw a line.

That collective defiance explains why "Israel" continues to play. European football associations, echoing their hesitant political leaders, have been unwilling to make the same stand. "Israel’s" fixtures against Italy next month and Norway in October remain scheduled. While Italy’s coaches’ union has urged a suspension and Norway has pledged to donate match revenues to Gaza aid groups, neither country has chosen to boycott.

If just two nations refused to take the pitch, FIFA and UEFA would be forced to act. But the risk is heavy, including potential sanctions or even losing a shot at the World Cup.

Steve Bloomfield reflects that while sporting boycotts may seem too small in the face of such large-scale crimes, symbolic action still matters. As Peter Hain, who fought to isolate apartheid South Africa through sport, reminds us, boycotts struck visible blows, stripping regimes of legitimacy and status.

Football may appear trivial, but for millions it is central to daily life. Raising the prospect of a boycott forces attention back to a war too many would rather ignore.

Bloomfield concludes that "Israel’s" team should not enjoy the privilege of being treated as equals. Football must show the bravery that governments lack. It will not end the war or ease the suffering,  that power lies with Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu, not with fans or players. But as Hain says, “You can only do what you can do.”