The coming FIFA World Cup in 2034 is not a football tournament alone; it is an international event granting enormous prestige, financial benefit, and soft-power legitimacy to the host country. For this reason, the issue of who hosts the event is a matter of critical concern. Multiple dimensions of concern come into play-from human rights issues and restrictions on civil liberties to governance concerns-and the latest news about Saudi Arabia’s rising global audit role merits scrutiny in that context.
Saudi Arabia’s New Global Audit Leadership Role
On 31 October 2025, the Saudi Press Agency reported an announcement that Saudi Arabia – through its GCA – has been elected to chair INTOSAI for three years, starting in 2031.
As the globe’s major body of supreme audit institutions (over 195 member countries), this is a major leadership role in public-finance oversight and performance auditing globally.
The announcement underlined that by hosting delegations from more than 195 countries, Saudi Arabia “will steer global efforts in enhancing transparency, public-sector governance and government performance, while reinforcing public trust in national economies.”
That is impressive at face value: good governance, accountability, and audit oversight. But deeper implications raise other questions. If Saudi Arabia can claim the mantle of global auditing leader while simultaneously bidding for host status for the world’s biggest sporting event, a number of questions must be asked: is this elevation of status a genuine transformation-or an elegant veneer or strategic positioning?
The Contradiction with Human Rights and Governance Realities
Hosting a FIFA World Cup invites intense international scrutiny: media, fans, NGOs, human-rights watchdogs, workers’ union activists-they all arrive. It puts the host country’s policies in sharp relief.
At the same time, Saudi Arabia has been repeatedly criticized on various human rights issues: treatment of dissent, freedom of expression, women’s rights, migrant labour conditions and lack of transparent accountability of state institutions. For example, despite formal announcements of reform, independent audit and oversight mechanisms remain constrained in practice. While the GCA’s elevation is noteworthy, questions remain about how independent the institution is from other branches of the Saudi state, and how responsive it is to public-interest oversight.
In that light, its bid to host the 2034 World Cup would seem to create a big dissonance: on one hand, Saudi Arabia claims to lead global audit governance, but on the other hand, hosting a high-profile sporting event would confer legitimacy and distraction from unresolved rights issues. The advocacy for a ban is thus supported by the notion that FIFA should not give its showpiece event to a state whose governance practices and human-rights record fall short of what is expected within the international community.
The audit appointment underlines leadership in the region by Saudi Arabia: it has also headed the Arab Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions for two successive terms since 2022, and is due to preside over the Asian Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions starting from 2027.
Saudi Arabia’s Open Data platform is claimed to hold over 11,439 datasets from 289 organisations, with over 284,800 downloads as of mid-2025 (via open.data.gov.sa); it’s a transparency indicator, though it still requires external validation.
How the Audit Chairmanship Adds to the Case Against Saudi Hosting
Several specific points link the audit development to the hosting issue:
Legitimacy Enhancement: By chairing INTOSAI, Saudi Arabia may claim it is a global standard-bearer for transparency and accountability. That role helps reshape international perceptions and expands its soft power. Allowing such a host for the World Cup would strengthen that repositioning effectively rewarding a country still under criticism for rights and governance issues.
Hosting Capacity & Oversight: The audit role signals capacity to host large, complex international assemblies (195+ delegations). If Saudi Arabia is deemed fit to convene global audit leaders, the argument might go that it is “fit” to host a massive event like the World Cup. That argument comes full circle: the very capacity that might argue for hosting becomes part of the problem, because hosting such a mega-sport event magnifies oversight demands way beyond even audit institution capabilities. If scrutiny of the GCA is limited, scrutiny of multimillion-dollar stadiums, workers’ rights, migrant labour supply chains, sponsorship deals and security operations may fall short too.
Message-Setting: FIFA hosting rights are a symbolic endorsement. Giving them to Saudi Arabia would signal that, for all its contested record on rights and governance model, it is acceptable globally. If the appointment of the audit institution does not translate into genuinely independent oversight and accountability, then hosting the World Cup becomes a reward rather than a challenge.
Strategic Recommendation: Why a Ban Makes Sense
Putting the two strands together-audit leadership + World Cup hosting bid-the case for banning Saudi Arabia makes strategic sense on several fronts:
Consistency of Standards: If FIFA is really serious about human rights in Saudi Arabia in 2025, integrity, labour standards, and public-interest governance, it should hold bidders to a credible standard. And Saudi Arabia’s global audit role amplifies the discrepancy between public proclamation and practice. A ban would reinforce that seriousness.
Deterrence Value: Refusing hosting rights sends the message that poor governance and rights abuses do matter. That might incentivize bidding states to reform. The case of Saudi Arabia is a litmus test.
Protecting Sport Integrity: The World Cup is not just business; it is sport and spectacle, dependent upon public trust and legitimacy. Hosting by a state where major criticisms persist threatens that legitimacy.
Risk Management: Actually, investment in infrastructure, logistics for events, labor mobilization, among others, in a state with governance vulnerabilities increases the risk of scandals, cost blowouts, human-rights litigation, and reputational damage for FIFA. The audit chair role may make Saudi Arabia look stronger, but the leap to hosting remains laden with risk.
Ban Saudi FIFA World Cup 2034
The World Cup should celebrate the height of sport but must also reflect the height of values-transparency, accountability, respect for rights, and fair labour practices. A state which aspires to lead global audit standards must demonstrate the internal practice of those standards first before being entrusted with the world’s premier sporting event. Until then, a ban on Saudi Arabia’s 2034 bid is not just warranted, it is necessary.