This is absolutely true. Years ago, I was the United States representative to the IFFHS and used to get a ballot every year to vote for the Referee of the Year. I never voted, because while I am very interested in referee assignments, I don't really know shit about refereeing. However, I'll bet that there were plenty of others in other countries just as unqualified as I was who did vote.
Wait. So if Iran is removed, or sanctioned, from the World Cup, does that mean my favorite referee can't go also? Talking about Alireza Faghani here.
Why would Iran be removed or sanctioned? The Iranian federation might withdraw. That’s different. Regardless, Faghani is an Australian FIFA referee now. This is not a thing like four different ways.
Because in the world we live in where our politicians are openly insulting people's intelligence and telling us, basically, that 2+2=5. Why not ban Faghani and the Iranian national team? Our government isn't allowing fans to attend from certain countries just because so why would banning a team or a referee be out of bounds? We have politicians saying "we are not at war with Iran, they declared war on us." "We launched a preemptive strike because we knew if Israel attacked Iran would respond." Yet, all of this and every time I watch a tennis tournament and a Russian player participates they can't play under the Russian flag. This isn't a political forum, but I just have to say it's just gross what is going on.
See, this is what I mean. When someone asks a question that you may think is simple, you immediately morph into a condescending KNOB. For no reason at all, other than maybe that's just the person you might be. Of course, it can be a thing in at least ONE way. Even if it's not a thing in four different ways, there IS one way it can be a thing: because he's Iranian AND we just started a war with them. Oh, wait, maybe that's two ways, but because you didn't think of them then, I guess those ways don't matter to anyone else. It seems as if at least one other poster is open-minded enough to imagine a way it can be a thing too. Maybe we're the crazy ones @RedStar91 See there...... I can be condescending, also. I'll probably get banned from this board for doing it, though, cuz I'm not a big, bad moderator who makes the regular folks feel small when they post a legitimate question.
Maybe Iranian/Australian referee Faghani can officiate under the Unified Team flag. Does FIFA recognize it as the IOC does? I see it's not the Unified team anymore, it's the AIN for Individual Neutral Athletes.
If we're now going to start banning nations or referees from nations that were attacked, I guess Ukraine shouldn't even bother showing up for it's next World Cup qualifier on March 26.
But our government and, some media, is framing it that Iran is the aggressors and the one that started this. That's how they would frame a ban.
No idea what this is reference to. I was dismissive for two reasons. The first is that this started a political discussion which now multiple people are complaining to me about privately and asking me to delete posts. By dismissing your question, I hoped to head off such a discussion. And second, despite your conclusion, I do not think the question is legitimate. You seem to be reading my own geopolitical opinions into my response, but my point here is that your proposition--that Iran get removed or sanctioned--simply is not in the cards. The Iranian FA, if it remains controlled by the currently recognized government, might withdraw, but that's different. A country withdrawing or not participating in a FIFA tournament does not mean that referees from that country cannot participate. Also, the fact that Faghani is a registered Australian referee with Australian ARs is very relevant to answering your question. If we want to talk about refereeing matters, then this absolutely is not a thing. Sorry. If you want to have a political discussion, you can find other venues online for that. Glad we were able to have this interaction.
Ok really stupid non-political question...when someone moves does the FIFA badge automatically transfer? What would happen if he had bad match while registered in Iran in a match against Australia, could that ever be an issue within the confederation?
While Faghani is refereeing under the Australian flag, him being Iranian will be a problem, optically, assigning him to certain teams. Even before the US' invasion, he probably wouldn't have been able to officiate a US match. Any chance he officiates one now even if he is flying under an Australian flag? I think we both know the answer to that. What about if some of the European/NATO countries formally get involved in this via military support? Would he officiate an England match? We've seen other referees get excluded from certain matches/assignments due to their background/nationality and/or geoplitical issues(i.e. Elfath not eligible to officiate a Morocco semi-final, Milorad Mazic ineligible for World Cup final in 2018 due to presence of Croatia, no English referee will ever be able to officiate an Argentina match, etc.)
And that's always an issue. Again, this isn't new. Why is this interesting? Elfath wasn't going to officiate Iran either. And now we're in the "what if" political game. Once again, what does this have to do with the idea of Faghani not going to WC26? Restrictions on officiating matches have always been part of the discussion. They will continue to be part of the discussion. And they can be dynamic. But that's not what was suggested or asked here.
I think political undertones (which as you note have always been present) are a non-trivial part of why Sandro Schärer will be going to the World Cup, if he is even close to fitness. There is significant benefit for FIFA to have a Swiss referee for politically fraught matches.
I think you're over-selling both the importance of a Swiss passport and Scharer's relative abilities in the current era. Meier and Busacca went to World Cups because they were among the best of the best. FIFA or UEFA hasn't deliberately "found" a Swiss referee in about 15 years because the quality simply wasn't there. Scharer is borderline and rising; like you say, if fit, he probably goes. But that's because of merit relative to the other European referees. In this modern age, if you have a fraught political matchup, there are big-name referees who you can find that would be trusted to handle such an assignment. And their personal stature is more important than their passport. You only have to look to 2022; Lahoz got USA v Iran despite being from a NATO/Western country. If there's a truly BIG game in 2026 with political issues, guys like Marciniak and Turpin (or one of the big South Americans) can easily get the call despite any political alliances of the nation they represent. Obviously there are exceptions (e.g., Marciniak wouldn't be handling Ukraine or Russia if they qualified or participated, respectively) but that's why there's more than one name in this category.
No, not automatically. Or at all, typically. The federation one is moving to needs to have to want to nominate the referee. Faghani is a pretty extreme example on the high end (possibly/likely the highest ever transfer). To go in the other direction, there have been several referees who have emigrated to the US with FIFA badges from the Caribbean; it's a little dated, but I believe most used to come in as Grade 5s as a matter of course. Alan Kelly is a good example of a somewhat high level referee doing what Faghani did and not getting a FIFA badge in his new country; though I suspect it's not something he was seeking either. Jarred Gillett moving to the UK from Australia is another good example; it took him several years to earn a FIFA badge in England. In the Faghani case, he moved to Australia to work in a better league and wanted to maintain his international status in Asia and with FIFA. I am not sure how the mechanics all worked themselves out or if guarantees were made ahead of time, but the Australian FA was obviously ready to satisfy whatever his demands were. Not sure what you're asking. In a competitive match, he can't referee a country he's a citizen of (Iran) or representing (Australia) so this isn't an issue. The only issue is his transfer eliminates a country that he used to be able to referee (as I'm quite sure he officiated Australia or Australian clubs a few times in AFC competitions before moving).
Most recently I believe, Lezama was a FIFA in Nicaragua. He has continued to work for the PRO-assigned leagues, but this is his first year as a national referee here in the US.
Iran has withdrawn. https://abcnews.com/International/live-updates/iran-live-updates/?id=130893022&entryId=130970767
Though I agree this is the eventuality (and always was, unless a new government or authority took control of the sports ministry relatively quickly), I do think there's a distinction between a public pronouncement and a notice of withdrawal that is officially conveyed to FIFA. Probably a matter of days before that happens at most, but given how dynamic a situation like this is, the official act is what matters.
Also, not directly a referee thing but if this withdrawal is made and ratified, FIFA has some decisions on its hands re: replacement. 1) UAE finished third in the group Iran qualified directly from. You can make an argument UAE moves up and takes that slot. Probably the least disruptive move and there is some logic to it. 2) But UAE went through the AFC playoffs and lost to Iraq head-to-head. More than a little perverse for UAE to get in directly now while Iraq still goes through an additional playoff. Particularly when Iraq is asking its own playoff to be delayed due to the war. So that would be a double-whammy. So putting Iraq in directly might be the most sensible and fairest decision, but then it is disruptive: 2a) Do you then find a way for UAE to enter the intercontintental playoff in Iraq's stead? If you do, the logistics are nightmarish. You probably cannot pull that off in time and in a fair way for UAE. Not sure what you do. 2b) But then if you don't, Bolivia v Suriname is now a direct qualifier for the World Cup and AFC essentially loses it's playoff spot. Not sure AFC will go for it (and UAE definitely won't like it).
to steal this line from another thread: If Iran CAN'T play in the World Cup then it's the host's fault. If they CHOOSE not to play in the World Cup, then they can be fined and banned by FIFA.
UEFA seminar had to be postponed because, naturally, it was to take place in Dubai. Going to happen over two sessions in Italy now. Won't get full list until after the second one concludes in April: https://law5-theref.blogspot.com/2025/12/2026-fifa-world-cup-afc-caf-concacaf.html
https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/48249862/iran-world-cup-2026-usa-mehdi-taj-mexico and then again maybe not
Not to be a conspiracy theorist here, but I can see Iran saying to FIFA "yeah we will be at the World Cup promise" and then about a week or a couple of days before their first game they pull the rug out underneath from FIFA and say "na, we're not playing in a country that is bombing us back to the stone age." This way they don't give FIFA enough time to find a replacement and the forefit of their games completely messes with the rest of the competition as the third place team in the group will get three points they didn't earn. Now, they do that and they probably end up being banned from the next couple of World Cups as a result.
idk how that this could be pulled off in the modern age. I mean teams have their camps… Referees get called into there training like 4 weeks before the first kickoff. I know during that period they often have fifa officials that meet with the teams and they explain to them points of emphasis and new law changes. If for example a team doesn’t show up to their camp 4 weeks out it would be pretty noticeable to the teams and fifa can start their contingency protocols.
What I think is most likely at this point: Iran drops out with at least a month to spare, they get replaced by someone from Asia, and at most they get a slap on the wrist. FIFA has rules, but the politics will override a strict application of the rules. Teams refused to play Russia, so Russia got kicked out. Why? Because a lot of countries weren't happy with Russia's invasion of Ukraine, not because of the official words in some FIFA statute. Iran doesn't have anywhere near as many friends as Ukraine does, but when it comes down to it, regardless of the official political stances of the countries involved, people will generally be sympathetic to the idea of "We don't want to play in a country that is literally bombing us." The idea of moving Iran's matches to Mexico is at least vaguely plausible, but highly unlikely here. You can look at cricket's various controversies (most notably the 2025 ICC Champions Trophy) for similar situations. India didn't want to play in Pakistan, so all of their matches were moved to Dubai. But India's significance to the financial health of world cricket is considerably higher than Iran's significance to FIFA. So I think there's close to zero chance of accommodating Iran with matches in Mexico.