FIFA officially made the decision to award Saudi Arabia the 2034 World Cup, which has sparked a firestorm of debate and criticism. Some see it as a potential catalyst for change, while others view it as a stark contradiction to FIFA’s professed commitment to human rights.
Saudi Arabia was the only formal bidder after the AFC quickly backed the Kingdom’s proposal, effectively quashing a would-be bid from Australia. The decision, while not unexpected given the geopolitical clout and financial largesse that propelled it, still has profound implications for FIFA’s values and the integrity of its human rights commitments.
A Divided Response
Proponents of the decision say that bringing a marquee sporting event to Saudi Arabia opens a door to reform. The esteemed sports journalist Tracey Holmes called it a “once-in-a-generation opportunity” for positive social change. Messages of congratulations from celebrities, athletes, and officials around the world flooded into the Saudi Arabian Football Association and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, suggesting growing acceptance among the movers and shakers.
But this rosy perspective is far from universal. Human rights groups had been scathing in their criticism. Human Rights Watch issued a blunt prediction: “There is a near certainty the 2034 World Cup will be stained by widespread rights violations.” Amnesty International and other advocacy organizations shared this concern, as they cited Saudi Arabia’s troubling track record on freedom of expression, women’s rights, and issues concerning people who identify as LGBTQIA+.
FIFA’s Commitments on Human Rights
Since 2017, FIFA has pretended to be guided by a Human Rights Policy built around the United Nations’ “Ruggie Principle,s” enshrining three principal responsibilities:
- And governments are responsible for protecting human rights.
- Companies must protect human rights and remedy abuses in which they are implicated.
- Victims need access to effective remedies.
FIFA’s policy pledges to “exercise leverage” in preventing and addressing human rights issues in its operations and dealings. It also promises more than merely respect for rights, seeking to “foster the protection of human rights.” However, granting the country one of the most criticized human rights records in the world, the 2034 World Cup challenges the integrity and impact of this policy.
Previous World Cups: History and Missed Opportunities
If past is prologue, global sporting events do not lead to major improvements in human rights. History from previous World Cups shows that authoritarian regimes rally around such events precisely to cement their political agendas rather than reform it.
Russia 2018: Russia was awarded the tournament despite widespread accusations of corruption in the bidding process and calls to shift the tournament amid geopolitical tensions. There had been increased surveillance, intimidation and arrests of LGBTQIA+ people, journalists and activists in the run-up to the event. The tournament was a public relations windfall for Vladimir Putin, but not a vehicle for promoting rights.
Qatar 2022: Qatar’s bid was similarly controversial. The country pledged labor reforms, and implemented some, adjusting provisions governing workers’ housing and limited changes to its laws. These measures did little, however, to protect the thousands of migrant workers who died during construction projects. Restricting women’s rights, LGBTQIA+ freedoms and press freedoms continued unabated.
Track Record of Saudi Arabia That Worries
There are many human rights challenges with Saudi Arabia. The country enforces harsh laws against homosexuality and curbs women’s freedoms, as well as freedom of speech, and has been associated with extrajudicial killings, including the killing of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
In July 2024, FIFA released an executive summary assessing the risks of human rights abuses related to the 2034 World Cup. But when it came to the risks, FIFA categorized them as “medium,” and then said optimistically that there was “good potential” for the event to improve the country’s trajectory on human rights.
But the Saudi bid document itself — a 28-page report — has some disturbing omissions. It does not mention LGBTQIA+ rights, no promises on the freedom of the press and no solid commitments on religious and minority rights.
Labor Rights: A Major Red Flag
The biggest concern relates to labor rights. The Saudi report admits serious existing deficiencies and pledges reform, especially around welfare standards and forced labor. It highlights the various reform of labor laws carried out by the Kingdom to improve worker conditions in recent years.
But skepticism remains high in the face of such promises. Building 11 new stadiums, new transportation infrastructure, and nearly 200,000 hotel rooms will take a significant labor force. Today, Saudi Arabia is dependent on about 13 million migrant workers, who often toil in perilous, exploitative conditions.
The Guardian investigation recently found that 1,500 migrant workers from Bangladesh died in Saudi Arabia in 2022 alone — many succumbing to heatstroke, exhaustion or avoidable workplace accidents. Without robust enforcement of labor protections, and independent monitoring, it’s hard to see how future developments happen without tragedy on a similar scale.
Why Do We Keep Giving World Cups to Authoritarian Regimes?
FIFA is adamant the World Cup can spur progress in countries granted the privilege of hosting it despite poor rights records. But this conviction seems based more on rhetoric than reality. In reality, FIFA gives the event to bidding countries that can afford the bill.
It typically costs plenty to host a World Cup, often running to billions in investment. Many democracies are increasingly averse to bearing that load, especially with the specter of cost overruns and political backlash. Australia had a reported interest in bidding for 2034, but its chances crumbled when the AFC pledged its support for Saudi Arabia.
With deep pockets fueled by oil and a national vision that soared, Saudi Arabia was willing to spend whatever it cost. This aggressive campaign is part of a wider approach that aims to improve the Kingdom’s public profile globally through sport. This is part of a so-called “sportswashing” strategy that also includes the purchase of sports teams, the LIV Golf tour and hosting boxing and Formula One events.
Is the Beautiful Game Being Used to Mask Ugly Truths?
By giving Saudi Arabia the 2034 World Cup, FIFA severely damages its credibility as a defender of human rights. The organization, with all its policy platitudes,681 it looks like it is powered by money and influence, not moral leadership.
And although some are hopeful that all the attention from the World Cup might pressure Saudi Arabia to implement reforms, history tells a different story. Unless FIFA adopts more stringent, enforceable human rights conditions — and holds hosts accountable — it is at risk of turning its biggest event into a showcase of repression, not progress.