Federated learning (FL) offers a machine learning paradigm that protects privacy, allowing multiple clients to collaboratively train a global model while only accessing their local data. Recent research in FL has increasingly focused on improving the uniformity of model performance across clients, a fairness principle known as egalitarian fairness. However, achieving egalitarian fairness in FL may sacrifice the model performance for data-rich clients to benefit those with less data. This trade-off raises concerns about the stability of FL, as data-rich clients may opt to leave the current coalition and join another that is more closely aligned with its expected high performance. In this context, our work rigorously addresses the critical concern: Does egalitarian fairness lead to instability? Drawing from game theory and social choice theory, we initially characterize fair FL systems as altruism coalition formation games (ACFGs) and reveal that the instability issues emerging from the pursuit of egalitarian fairness are significantly related to the clients’ altruism within the coalition and the configuration of the friends-relationship networks among the clients. Then, we theoretically propose the optimal egalitarian fairness bounds that an FL coalition can achieve while maintaining core stability under various types of altruistic behaviors. The theoretical contributions clarify the quantitative relationships between achievable egalitarian fairness and the disparities in the sizes of local datasets, disproving the misconception that egalitarian fairness inevitably leads to instability. Finally, we conduct experiments to evaluate the consistency of our theoretically derived egalitarian fairness bounds with the empirically achieved egalitarian fairness in fair FL settings.