Will the Iranian soccer team be able to play all of their scheduled matches in the 2026 FIFA World Cup?

TL;DR

Iran is very likely to complete every World Cup match it is scheduled to play. It has already completed two U.S.-hosted group matches, and the remaining fixed match is Egypt v IR Iran in Seattle on June 27 at 03:00 UTC. My forecast is 94% Yes; the main No path is a sudden political, visa, or security breakdown before Seattle or before a knockout match if Iran advances.

Context

As of June 21, 2026 at 21:45 UTC, official FIFA tournament data lists Iran’s Group G results as IR Iran 2-2 New Zealand on June 16 at 01:00 UTC and Belgium 0-0 IR Iran on June 21 at 19:00 UTC, with Egypt v IR Iran scheduled for June 27 at 03:00 UTC in Seattle (FIFA schedule, AP Belgium-Iran report, AP New Zealand-Iran report). Iran is on 2 points from 2 matches, so the question is no longer mainly about pre-tournament participation; it is about one remaining group match plus any knockout matches Iran earns.

The politics still matter. U.S. officials said on June 5 that Iran’s players had been approved for U.S. visas, while players, coaches, trainers, and some support staff had visas and some affiliated applicants may have been rejected (AP visa report). The U.S. also said Iran could enter on matchday minus one and leave after matches, and that the same process could be repeated in Los Angeles and Seattle (AP travel-process report).

Evidence

The historical base rate is strongly pro-Yes. FIFA’s own participant counts give 489 actual men’s World Cup team-tournament starts from 1930 through 2022, and I found no case where a team that had already taken the field in the finals then failed to complete a scheduled finals match (FIFA team-count history). The known non-participation cases were before play: Austria in 1938 after the Anschluss, and Turkey, Scotland, India, and France around the 1950 finals; RSSSF’s 1950 qualification archive records Turkey withdrawing, Scotland declining, India withdrawing after a walkover, and France accepting a replacement place before withdrawing (RSSSF 1950 archive, 1938 World Cup background).

That base rate cannot be used raw. Iran is playing in a host country with which it has been in an armed conflict. ACLED’s weekly HDX aggregate for Iran, with a June 21, 2026 cutoff, shows 3,591 political-violence events and 6,836 fatalities from July 2025 through June 2026, so the risk environment is not normal (ACLED data portal, HDX ACLED repository).

The current operational evidence is better than the conflict backdrop. Iran has already crossed into the U.S. and played twice. When winger Mehdi Torabi’s visa expired after the opener, the State Department said he had been issued a new multiple-entry visa so he could participate in every game (AP Torabi/travel report). Reuters reported on June 20 that the U.S. would keep assessing Iran’s travel arrangements but that the original plan remained in place, with discussions after the Belgium match on what Seattle would look like (Reuters via WTBX). FIFA also said after a June 10 meeting that it and the Iranian federation had reaffirmed cooperation around Team Melli’s participation (FIFA statement).

I modeled the remaining soccer path because advancement adds more scheduled matches. World Football Elo’s June 21 snapshot has Iran at 1756, Egypt at 1711, Belgium at 1879, and New Zealand at 1578; the neutral-site Elo match model gives Iran a 43.7% win, 25.5% draw, and 30.8% loss chance against Egypt, while Belgium is an 79.9% favorite over New Zealand and Egypt is a 58.9% favorite over New Zealand (World Football Elo). Enumerating the remaining Group G win/draw/loss outcomes gives Iran about a 47.7% chance to finish top two, a 40.6% chance to finish third, and an 11.7% chance to finish fourth. I then give a third-place Iran about an 85% advancement chance if it has 3 points and a 5% chance if it has 2 points, which yields an overall advancement probability of about 67%. FIFA’s 2026 format sends the top two teams in each of 12 groups plus the eight best third-place teams to the Round of 32 (FIFA format explainer).

My final calculation uses three judgmental inputs. I set a 2.8% chance Iran fails to complete the Egypt match. Conditional on completing the group stage, I set a 67% chance Iran advances. Conditional on advancing, I set a 4.5% chance it fails to complete at least one knockout match. The formula is:

$$P(YES)=(1-p_g)\times(1-A\times p_k)$$

Here $p_g$ is failure before or during Egypt, $A$ is Iran’s chance of advancing, and $p_k$ is conditional knockout non-completion risk. Plugging in $p_g=0.028$, $A=0.67$, and $p_k=0.045$ gives 94.3% Yes.

What's non-obvious

The strongest update is revealed behavior. March and April headlines made this look like a boycott or exclusion question. By June 21, Iran had accepted a Tijuana base, entered the U.S. under tight rules, completed one match, fixed a player visa problem, and completed a second match. That makes the live risk much narrower than the pre-tournament narrative suggests.

The other non-obvious point is that advancement is mildly bad for this forecast. A loss to Egypt probably ends Iran’s tournament after one more completed match. A win or draw makes at least one more scheduled match more likely, and that creates more visa, venue, travel, and escalation points.

Limitations

I cannot see the private FIFA-U.S.-Iran visa and security understandings for Seattle or for every possible knockout venue. Public reporting is clear that players and coaches were cleared for the first U.S. matches and that officials expected the process to work again in Seattle, but it does not prove that every possible July venue is already solved (AP visa report, AP travel-process report).

The largest true uncertainty is geopolitical, not sporting. AP reported on June 21 that U.S.-Iran talks in Switzerland had a tense start after President Trump threatened Tehran, while separate AP live coverage said the Lebanon ceasefire appeared to be holding but remained disputed (AP Switzerland talks, AP live update). A major strike, visa revocation, or Iranian political decision could still turn a historically rare outcome into a No within days.