A group of cross-party MPs have called on Fifa to consider expelling the United States from the World Cup until the country demonstrates "clear compliance with international law and respect for the sovereignty of other nations". It follows the seizure by US forces of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro in a raid on the capital city Caracas this month, along with warnings that US president Donald Trump has recently issued to a host of other countries.

So with the US due to host both the World Cup and Olympics over the next two and a half years, what questions does America's foreign policy raise for sports organisations, and could any take a stand? Back in December, Fifa awarded Trump its inaugural 'Peace Prize' at the 2026 World Cup draw ceremony in Washington, saying he had "played a pivotal role" in establishing a ceasefire and promoted peace between Israel and Palestine, and that he has sought to end other conflicts.

In the few weeks since, the US has taken military action in both Venezuela and Nigeria and has hinted at possible further operations in Greenland, fellow World Cup co-host Mexico, and two other participants in the tournament - Colombia and Iran. Now, 23 politicians from Labour, the Lib Dems, Green Party and Plaid Cymru have signed a motion, external in parliament, calling on international sporting bodies to consider expelling the US from major international competitions, including the World Cup. They say such events "should not be used to legitimise or normalise violations of international law by powerful states".

The MPs express concern about the "escalation of US actions against Venezuela", including "the kidnapping of President Nicolas Maduro", claiming that they amount to "a direct intervention in the internal affairs of a sovereign state". Their motion also notes "repeated veiled and overt threats made by senior US officials", towards Denmark, Colombia and Cuba, saying it "undermines the rules-based international order".

While the White House is yet to respond to the BBC about the MPs' motion, it has previously claimed that the capture of Maduro was a law-enforcement operation against an illegitimate leader responsible for both drug-trafficking and terrorism. Trump said the US will now control Venezuela and its oil industry. Maduro insists he is a prisoner of war, and Trump faced strong criticism at an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council. UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres said he was "deeply concerned that rules of international law have not been respected" during the US action.

Meanwhile, Trump has also told Cuba to "make a deal" over Venezuelan oil exports "before it is too late", and said a military operation targeting Colombia "sounds good". As with Venezuela, Trump has accused Colombia of not doing enough to tackle drug trafficking. Colombia president Gustavo Petro has told the BBC that he believes there is now a "real threat" of US military action against his country.

Trump has also claimed that drugs are "pouring" through Mexico into America, adding "we're gonna have to do something", amid reports that he has started planning a mission to send in US troops. Mexico president Claudia Sheinbaum says she has rejected any US military action on Mexican soil. Trump has also insisted his country needs to take over Greenland for national security reasons and has not ruled out using military force. The mineral-rich Arctic territory is controlled by Denmark, a fellow Nato member, and potentially also in the World Cup if its team comes through the play-offs.

The Trump administration has also faced mounting scrutiny over the legality of air strikes on alleged drug smuggling boats in the Caribbean Sea and Eastern Pacific. Fifa declined to comment on the MPs' motion, and whether it may now reconsider the annual awarding of its peace prize in light of Trump's recent foreign policy. But few believe it will take any action against a country that is hosting the majority of its matches at the World Cup, especially given the close relationship the governing body's president Gianni Infantino has cultivated with Trump.

Such ties have led to accusations that Fifa has become politicised, although it insists that as an organiser of football events it has a statutory duty to remain neutral. This is not the first time Fifa has come under pressure over the political actions of a World Cup host. In 2018, the tournament went ahead in Russia despite the country annexing Crimea four years earlier. Russia also stood accused of cyber attacks, meddling in western elections and carrying out the Novichok nerve agent attack in Salisbury.

However, comparisons have also been drawn with the way Fifa subsequently banned Russia after its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, a sanction that remains in place. "Let's have consistency," Brian Leishman, one of the MPs who has signed the motion, told the Daily Mirror when asked about the US action in Venezuela. "It's an invasion of a sovereign nation and the kidnap of a president in Venezuela. I'm very critical of Maduro, I want to be very clear on that, but what we've seen is a breach of international law. When you see how Russia has been treated, which is absolutely correct, I just want there to be consistency."

Some at Fifa privately point out that the Russian Football Union is still a member association and that the ban on playing internationals was more down to teams refusing to play against Russia and security concerns, rather than the governing body taking a moral position. An insight into Fifa's approach came in October when Infantino said Fifa "cannot solve geopolitical problems" amid pressure to sanction Israel after a United Nations commission of inquiry concluded that it had committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. Israel's foreign ministry said it categorically rejected the report, denouncing it as "distorted and false".

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) also maintains a ban on Russian teams at the Games, with individual athletes only allowed to compete as neutrals, as long as they are admitted by the relevant sporting federations. However, it has ruled out the exclusion of any American athletes from February's Winter Olympics in Milan and Cortina in Italy.

In a statement issued to BBC Sport, it said: "As a global organisation, the IOC has to manage a complex reality. The IOC has to deal with the current political context and the latest developments in the world. The ability to bring athletes together, no matter where they come from, is fundamental to the future of values-based, truly global sport, which can give hope to the world. For this reason, the IOC cannot involve itself directly in political matters or conflicts between countries, as these fall outside our remit. This is the realm of politics."

Last year, the IOC also rejected calls to bar Israel over the Gaza war, stating that the country's national Olympic committee had complied with the Olympic Charter. IOC sources have told BBC Sport a distinction has to be made with Russia because it took over Ukrainian territory and put athletes there under the control of the Russian Olympic Committee, which is against the Olympic Charter. Los Angeles is hosting the Olympics in 2028.

Some believe that, depending on Trump's next moves, the situation could become harder for sports bodies to navigate. "Fifa and the IOC could be heading towards one almighty headache," according to John Zerafa, a veteran advisor to countries and cities wanting to host major sports events. "Both organisations' charters emphasise peace, respect for sovereignty, and non-discrimination. If, in a worst-case scenario, the US were to use force against Greenland - a Nato ally's territory - would those same principles apply? If Denmark qualifies via the play-offs, would it boycott the World Cup? Would European or Nato leaders refuse to attend US-hosted events?"

"This isn't just geopolitics. It's a looming stress-test for sporting institutions that pride themselves on neutrality, yet repeatedly find themselves forced to take political positions when international law and conflict collide with global competition." Trump's hardline immigration policy could also have an impact on the World Cup, which begins on 11 June.

Fifa vowed to have a welcoming and unifying tournament, but there are now four competing countries - Iran, Haiti, Senegal and Ivory Coast - whose fans face full or partial travel bans, with the White House referencing a need to manage security threats. Meanwhile, domestic tensions in the US have intensified after Renee Good, 37, was shot dead by an immigration agent in Minneapolis last week, triggering large protests in the city.

Even before the incident, human rights organisations had claimed the World Cup was at increasing danger of being "weaponised for authoritarian aims", external and criticised "escalating attacks on immigrants in the US... and threats to press freedom and the rights of peaceful protesters". As Fifa's biggest-ever tournament approaches it will be fascinating to see what further impact US action overseas has on ticket sales, collaboration between the co-hosts on issues such as security, and whether sports bodies feel they need to do more to navigate a complicated geopolitical landscape.