When FIFA officially announced that Saudi Arabia would be hosting the 2034 World Cup, it wasn’t exactly a shock. The news had been long-awaited, not only due to the kingdom’s deep pockets or FIFA’s growing close relationship with authoritarian regimes, but because nobody else bid.
Nevertheless, the consequences are extensive. For the second time, football’s biggest stage is being left in the hands of a country with a profoundly tainted human rights history. This choice tells us much—not only about Saudi Arabia’s aspirations, but about what global sport has devolved into: an arena in which the vocabulary of advancement is used, yet seldom followed.
The Football Association’s Moment of Conscience And Rapid Retreat
Prior to issuing the final decision, there was a reported discussion between the English Football Association (FA) about protesting. There were whispers about voicing support for fundamental rights workers’ rights, women’s rights, LGBTQ rights all sensitive issues in Saudi Arabia.
Some within the FA pushed for a principled stand. A symbolic “No” vote could have registered disapproval of the fact that a country with a highly controlled society and little tolerance for dissent would be hosting the world’s most-watched sporting event. Others asked: if you’re going to protest, why not go further? Why not boycott?
But, as usually happens when idealism collides with pragmatism, the discussion soon came to an end. No boycott. No protest. Just another World Cup cycle in motion.
The Hypocrisy of Sport: Principles or Participation?
The case perfectly captures the dilemma that contemporary sports organizations are in. Organizations such as the FA or media such as The Guardian frequently talk about human rights and ethical leadership. But when it comes down to it, their love for soccer usually trumps their principles.
At Qatar 2022, this was all on show. England had come to the tournament having made big claims about justice and inclusivity. There were words spoken about their captain Harry Kane wearing a rainbow armband to promote LGBTQ rights. When FIFA put pressure on, the gesture was dropped.
The protest moment came and went with a mere ripple. And England, like all the other troubled countries, continued to compete. The cameras were rolling, the stadia were filled, and international viewers were treated to a month of thrilling drama.
The reality is that you can’t be morally indignant about a system but continue to derive advantages from it. That inconsistency was on display in 2022, and already doing it again for 2034.
Entertainment Over Ethics
There’s a chill to the core of it all: the public are concerned, but only so concerned. Human rights tales of host countries to big sporting events capture headlines and transient attention, but most fans do not wish lectures served with their live feed. Spain v Italy is tactics and goals—not geopolitics.
In a crisis- and injustice-saturated world, where migrant worker conditions are on par with wars, climate catastrophes, and political scandals, individuals choose their battles. And few are going to sacrifice their entertainment for the sake of principle.
That’s why these grand moments of “sport-washing” when authoritarian regimes use sports to enhance their global reputation continue to occur. The outrage cycle is fleeting. The spectacle prevails.
The World Cup Model: A Dilemma of Democracies or Dictatorships
The democratic approach is the first: several countries hosting together. The 2030 version, say, will be hosted by Spain, Portugal, and Morocco—special matches to be held in Argentina, Uruguay, and Paraguay. It’s a piecemeal arrangement, possibly designed to limit costs and political exposure. It’s also been turned into a marketing tool—is likely to be billed as the “greenest World Cup ever,” even though supporters may have to journey across continents to see their side play.
The second model is the dictatorship bid. One nation, one vision, unlimited funds. No bickering coalition governments. No complicated public referendums. Just a single, autocratic push to “put on a show.” That’s what Saudi Arabia promises—and why FIFA did not even go through the motions of having an actual vote this time.
FIFA’s Theater of Power
On 11th December 2024, inside a TV-show-like FIFA congress, the rubber stamp was affixed. No argument. No drama. Merely a convention room full of delegates applauding to order while President Gianni Infantino hailed the outcome by “acclamation.” Not even a single word of dissent uttered. No genuine vote required.
It was political theater that would have made a James Bond villain blush. Infantino’s final declaration—”The vote of the Congress is loud and clear”—sounded more like satire than governance. And yet, this is how the most powerful sports body in the world now functions.
Sport’s True Role: Unity, Not Perfection
Others contend that this isn’t necessarily a negative. Sport’s actual work is not to make the world better—it’s to unite human beings. The Olympics didn’t exclude the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Why should FIFA exclude Saudi Arabia today?
On this account, politics stop where the pitch starts. The sole aim is to put the best players on the same pitch, regardless of background or nation. Anything more than that—ideals, demonstrations, moral absolutism—is expecting too much.
There is a realism to this argument. Sport can be a bridge-builder. Conversation can ensue. But perfection? That’s not an option.
A Fork in the Road for Western Values
The World Cup in 2034 will compel the Western world, and liberal democracies like France, England, and Germany in particular, to pose tough questions. Are they really prepared to opt out of the show? Or are they happy to stay in and pose lip service protest?
Thus far, the answer is easy. The same nations that chastised Qatar are now standing with Saudi Arabia. The moral acrobatics involved in rationalizing this move are mind-boggling—but all too familiar.
Western nations enjoy proclaiming themselves on matters of values. Yet when there’s money, power, and fun involved, those values are conveniently pliable.
Stop Pretending to Protest What You Won’t Abandon
Perhaps what’s needed now is a little honesty. If countries and organizations aren’t prepared to sacrifice comfort or revenue for the sake of their convictions, they should stop pretending to be conflicted. Don’t wear the armband. Don’t draft the statement. Don’t protest unless you’re ready to give something up. Because if you’re not willing to forego your luxuries, then expressing moral outrage is just performance.