Calls to remove Haaland from World Cup over team-mate’s haircut

Social media and sections of the press erupted after Norway squad member Julian Ryerson debuted a striking new haircut during the national side’s World Cup qualification celebrations — a look that prompted some fans to call for Manchester City striker Erling Haaland to be removed from the squad. The episode has become a flashpoint not for tactics or goals, but for image, team cohesion and how far appearance should affect selection at the elite level.

What happened: the haircut that sparked a row

Julian Ryerson, a Norway international and club player who has featured regularly at full‑back, unveiled an elaborate hair design in images shared after Norway secured qualification for the 2026 World Cup. The look — described by some as an extravagant pattern shaved into the sides — quickly drew attention online. A minority of fans and commentators reacted with derision, and an amplified chorus criticised the choice as inappropriate for a national team setting.

Why Erling Haaland’s name entered the debate

Erling Haaland’s name was pulled into the conversation for two reasons. First, as Norway’s most prominent footballer and an international superstar via his club achievements, anything associated with the national squad becomes magnified. Second, some critics argued that influential players have a responsibility to govern team behaviour and image. Those critics suggested, sometimes facetiously, that Haaland should be held accountable — even to the extreme suggestion that he be removed from the squad — because of perceived lapses in team discipline.

Rules, precedent and the limits of appearance-based sanctions

It is worth separating performative outrage from governance realities. Football’s regulatory frameworks — at national association level and via FIFA — are primarily concerned with conduct that breaches sporting rules, safety, discriminatory messaging or political statements. A player’s hairstyle, unless it carries an offensive or political symbol, rarely constitutes grounds for disciplinary removal.

• Selection for national squads is a coach’s decision, informed by form, fitness and tactics.
• Governing bodies can intervene where appearance contravenes explicit regulations (e.g., offensive insignia).
• Public pressure and media narratives can influence team management decisions but do not equate to formal regulatory grounds.

In practice, then, a hairstyle may ignite public debate without changing the roster. Coaches may, however, address image internally through conversations about professionalism and representation.

How social media amplified a marginal story

The episode demonstrates social media’s power to escalate a minor visual choice into a headline story. Within hours of shared images circulating, opinion pieces, memes and heated threads proliferated across platforms. This rapid feedback loop encourages extreme takes — petitions, hyperbolic calls for sanction and performative outrage — that rarely reflect the views of the wider supporter base or the formal disciplinary apparatus of the sport.

For players, the takeaway is clear: personal style choices are now part of a public persona managed under intense scrutiny. For teams, the challenge is deciding how to respond: ignore the noise, address concerns privately, or engage publicly in order to shape a calmer narrative.

Context: hair, identity and football culture

Hair and personal style have always been part of football’s culture. From distinctive afros and shaved heads to dyed hair and patterned designs, hairstyles are a mode of self-expression that intersect with fashion, identity and media spectacle. Historically, clubs and national teams have taken different approaches — some allowing freedom of expression, others preferring a more conservative image during official functions.

Debates over appearance can become entangled with deeper issues: generational differences in attitudes, cultural expression, and the extent to which athletes should conform to institutional expectations. The Ryerson incident is less a new phenomenon than a modern iteration, in which social platforms accelerate judgement and intensify consequences.

Practical responses from teams and players

How teams handle such incidents is a matter of leadership style. Common responses include calm internal discussions, short public statements reminding followers of selection criteria, or media strategies to shift focus back to on‑field priorities. Players who are subject to public scrutiny often rely on agents, PR advisers or senior teammates to navigate the fallout.

Key Takeaways

• Appearance controversies often reflect social media dynamics rather than substantive breaches of rules.
• Football governing bodies rarely sanction players for hairstyles unless an element is offensive or breaches regulations.
• Coaches make selection decisions based on footballing criteria; public pressure is rarely decisive.
• High‑profile players can be unfairly held responsible for team image despite limited formal authority.
• Teams benefit from clear internal guidelines on representation and calm external communication.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Can a player be expelled from a national squad for their haircut?
A: Expulsion on the basis of a haircut alone would be highly unusual. Most associations focus on behaviour that impacts match integrity, safety, or breaches codes of conduct rather than personal style.

Q: Who decides national team selection and discipline?
A: Selection is the coach’s responsibility; discipline can involve coaching staff, the national association or — for serious breaches — football’s governing bodies. Each body has its own procedures and thresholds for action.

Q: Have hair controversies affected selection before?
A: While aesthetic debates have been common, documented cases where hair alone led to selection changes are rare. More often, image issues are part of broader concerns about professionalism or behaviour.

Q: Should star players be responsible for teammates’ conduct?
A: Influential players can set standards informally, but they do not have formal disciplinary power. Leadership is often exercised through example, guidance and private conversations.

Q: How should fans respond to such stories?
A: Engaging critically — distinguishing between sensational headlines and substantive issues — helps keep focus on the sport. Constructive debate about professionalism is valid; calls for extreme sanctions over appearance are disproportionate.

Stay Updated