The Football Association (FA) has been warned internally not to protest at a meeting on Wednesday at which Saudi Arabia is likely to be awarded the 2034 FIFA Men’s World Cup. The warning has a clear caveat — if the FA wants to contest Saudi Arabia’s choice as a host, it has to be prepared not to play in the tournament at all.
Saudi Arabia is the only bidder for the event and is to be awarded hosting rights at a virtual meeting of FIFA’s 211-member congress. But there’s still confusion about the process, despite the fact that there are no competitors. It is unclear whether member nations will get a chance to vote, or whether FIFA will simply ratify Saudi Arabia’s bid by acclamation — an old tradition of approval by applause, rather than a formal vote.
The FA’s Silence on the Vote
So far, the FA has not announced publicly how it intends to approach the decision. Though there has been debate at board level, some inside the organization have been cautious about any form of protest whatsoever, claiming it would have no meaning if England ends up at the tournament. A FA spokesperson declined to comment when contacted.
The situation is reminiscent of concerns the FA raised ahead of the 2022 Qatar World Cup. The English football governing body also aligned itself with UEFA’s human rights working group that had called for changes, including in relation to labor rights and LGBTQ+ equality. They called for paying financial compensation to migrant workers and proposed establishing a migrant workers’ centre in Qatar. But FIFA refused to accept these demands. The plans for England captain Harry Kane to wear a rainbow armband to show support for LGBTQ+ rights, also were scrapped after FIFA threatened punishments.
Norway Takes a Stand
The Norwegian Football Federation (NFF) has been the most vocal critic of both the World Cup selections in Qatar and Saudi Arabia among FIFA’s member associations. The NFF has said it will vote against Saudi Arabia’s bid and “object to the registration of an acclamation to approve the bid.”
The NFF outlined its concerns in an official letter to FIFA, saying its rivals’ presence had deeply compromised the integrity of the bidding process, which it said went against the tenets of “accountability, transparency and objectivity” that were meant to be at the heart of FIFA’s governance reforms in 2016 under its current president, Gianni Infantino.
“We are concerned about the lack of predictability and open processes that part of the trust in FIFA as the global custodian of football we based on,” said Lise Klaveness, president of the NFF. “With human rights concerns, FIFA’s own guidance on human rights and business and human rights due diligence has also not been sufficiently embedded in this process which heightens the human rights risks.” We have always urged FIFA to be, and to become, a stronger, rules-respecting and predictable steward of international football. We have to be consistent about that.”
So despite Norway’s vocal public stance, it is unlikely to find much support among the football federations of other countries because of FIFA’s governance structure, which rewards compliance and quells confrontation.
FIFA’s Evaluation of Saudi Arabia’s Bid
FIFA published its evaluation of Saudi Arabia’s bid recently, giving it a rating of 4.2 out of 5, the highest score ever awarded by FIFA to a World Cup bid. The report rated the risk of potential human rights abuses as “medium” but contended that holding the tournament could act as a “catalyst” for future reforms in the country.
Human rights organizations and independent watchdogs, however, report a different story. Critics say awarding the tournament to Saudi Arabia only helps further the country’s attempts to use sports to polish its global image, known as “sportswashing.”
Saudi Arabia has worked over the past decade to aggressively expand its power in international sports. The nation has played host to high-profile events, including the Supercoppa Italia, gained a sizeable foothold in professional golf courtesy of LIV Golf, and purchased Premier League side Newcastle United via its Public Investment Fund (PIF). The World Cup would be the centerpiece of its strategy for expansion into sports.
The Wider Impact on Football
Saudi Arabia’s confirmation as the 2034 World Cup host would also represent a crucial shift in FIFA’s own mechanisms for deciding hosts. The bidding, once a free-for-all, has become increasingly fixed.
In October 2023, FIFA confirmed the host for the 2030 World Cup as Spain, Portugal and Morocco, with three matches being held in Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay on an invitation basis for the tournament’s centenary. That plan — a multi-continent arrangement that FIFA has said would deliver “significantly more convenient access” for millions of fans — was met with criticism for the logistical complications and environmental impact it would entail; FIFA itself had warned that the scheme could have “a significant negative impact on the climate.”
With 2030 now settled, FIFA effectively left little room for any serious challenge to its pick for 2034; only bids from Asia or Oceania would be allowed under its rotation policy. Saudi Arabia quickly became the only candidate after Australia exited the race, citing logistical problems.
The Future of Football’s Global Governance
The FA’s hesitance to lay down the law is part of a wider pattern of reticence among football’s major governing bodies to challenge FIFA’s decisions. The World Cup in Qatar also laid bare the limitations of football associations’ power to take on FIFA’s authority, and many have since decided to take a more pragmatic road than to risk being cut off from the sport’s international governing body.
Although human rights activists and some national federations are sure to keep raising concerns, FIFA’s decision-making process is relatively insulated from outside pressure. FIFA has shown, as it has clearly done with Qatar 2022, that it is willing to put aside criticism for the sake of its wider commercial and political interests.
Saudi Arabia’s confirmation as the 2034 World Cup host seems set to go ahead without serious opposition. Short of taking the drastic step of boycotting the tournament — which the FA and the other football associations are not prepared to do — their concerns are unlikely to hold much water.
As football increasingly becomes influenced by geopolitical and economic interests, the question is will governing bodies uphold ethical considerations or will they continue to submit to FIFA’s decisions for stability and profit.