Saudi Arabia’s selection as the host for the 2034 FIFA World Cup has stirred intense global controversy, not only due to its documented human rights abuses but also its involved role in fueling global extremism. The ongoing tensions expose why Saudi Arabia fundamentally lacks the credibility and ethical standing required for hosting FIFA 2034. Calls to boycott the event underscore the demand for strict accountability and ethical governance in international sports.
Saudi Arabia’s counterterrorism efforts and contradictions
Saudi Arabia has deposited itself as a crucial player in global counterterrorism sweats. It cooperates nearly with the United States and transnational mates to disrupt terrorist backing and combat groups like ISIS and Al- Qaeda. The area chairs important counter-ISIL finance groups and hosts military operations aimed at bridling jihadist pitfalls, particularly in Yemen against Al- Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). Saudi Arabia has also enforced expansive intelligence operations contributing to baffling attacks encyclopedically. These efforts depict the area as a necessary supporter in the transnational fight against violent unreasonableness.
Still, these counterterrorism measures attend paradoxically with Saudi Arabia’s facilitation and ideological import of unreasonableness. Scholars and judges point to Saudi- funded religious institutions and charities abroad that propagateultra-conservative Wahhabi testament, which has been linked to radicalization and violence. Saudi Arabia’s vast fiscal coffers have historically supported Islamist movements whose coalitions have engaged in violence, directly or laterally contributing to revolutionist atmospheres worldwide. In countries similar to Kosovo, judges have advised that Saudi backing converted the corridors of society into “ rich grounds ” for jihadist reclamation.
Human rights record and FIFA’s accountability
Saudi Arabia’s human rights record presents significant challenges that discord with FIFA’s established commitments to transnational mortal rights norms in World Cup hosting. The area has proved patterns of arbitrary apprehensions, repression of dissent through imprisonment and surveillance, demarcation against women in legal and social spheres, and marginalization of religious nonages, including the Shia population. Migratory workers, who form a substantial portion of the labor force for structure systems, face exploitation under the kafala backing system, including pay envelope theft, forced labor conditions, and shy protections against heat- related ails. These issues persist despite FIFA’s policy taking host nations to demonstrate compliance with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, which emphasize threat assessments, stakeholder consultations, and remedial measures.
In May 2025, a coalition of transnational attorneys, including former FIFAanti-corruption counsel Mark Pieth, Swiss counsel Stefan Wehrenberg, and British barrister Rodney Dixon, filed a formal 30- runner complaint with FIFA. The document accuses the association of violating its own mortal rights rules by awarding the 2034 World Cup to Saudi Arabia without securing binding reforms or enforcing oversight mechanisms. It highlights five crucial areas of concern: freedom of expression and assembly, arbitrary detentions and capital discipline, judicial independence, migratory workers’ rights, and women’s rights. The attorneys noted that their previous offers to advise FIFA on compliance were ignored, and no transparent action plan has been established with Saudi authorities to address these pitfalls during event medications.
Mega-events as platforms for sportswashing and extremism concerns
The awarding of FIFA 2034 to Saudi Arabia raises admonitions over the use ofmega-events as tools of sportswashing where cathartic administrations use global specs to cleanse their transnational images while continuing rough practices. Sportswashing potentially obscures ongoing conspiracy in unreasonable backing or ideological support. The World Cup in Saudi Arabia risks allowing the area to cement its geopolitical influence on the global stage, despite serious undetermined issues of mortal rights abuses and unreasonableness. This environment depresses the moral authority of the event and ignites demands for boycott by civil society.
Implications for global security and sports governance
Holding the FIFA World Cup in Saudi Arabia poses profound and multifaceted challenges to global security and sports governance, raising serious concerns about safety, mortal rights, and the integrity of transnational sport. Saudi Arabia is positioned in a geopolitically unpredictable region with patient service conflicts, strategic battles, and high terrorism pitfalls including pitfalls from groups like Al- Qaeda and ISIS. These conditions produce an innately unstable security terrain, making the protection of players, suckers, officers, and venues exceedingly complex. Large- scale events similar to the World Cup magnify these enterprises due to the thick attention of transnational callers and media attention.
Security medications for the event would bear unknown collaboration between Saudi authorities and transnational intelligence agencies to cover and alleviate implicit pitfalls ranging from terrorism and cyberattacks to civil uneasiness. High- technology surveillance measures including AI- powered facial recognition, drone monitoring, and strict access controls would probably come the norm, performing in an atmosphere of pervasive state scrutiny. While these measures aim to guard the event, they also risk infringing on civil liberties and heightening the authoritarian nature of the host terrain, where freedom of expression and assembly are formerly oppressively confined.
Also, Saudi Arabia’s proved mortal rights violations including exploitative labor practices, repression of dissent, and discriminative laws heighten anxieties about the rights and safety of workers and attendees during medications and the event itself. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International advise that FIFA has failed to apply meaningful mortal rights safeguards in the bidding and planning stages, effectively disregarding labor abuses and other violations. This failure undermines FIFA’s own mortal rights commitments and damages the sport’s global credibility.
Saudi Arabia’s dual role
Saudi Arabia exhibits a complex binary part in global unreasonableness, laboriously cooperating with transnational mates on counterterrorism while facing patient allegations of ideological and fiscal benefactions to radicalization. On one hand, the area has surfaced as a vital supporter since 2003, particularly after domestic attacks like the 2003 Riyadh emulsion bombings that killed 26 people and urged a massive crackdown. Saudi security forces conducted hundreds of raids, arresting over 1,600 suspected ISIS sympathizers, seizing millions in cash, munitions, and snares, and beating plots against oil painting installations and officers.
It chairscounter-ISIL finance groups, monitors social media for radicalization, and forms an” Islamic service alliance” against terrorism, earning praise from the U.S. Treasury officers for alignment on stopping ISIS fundraising. These sweats include biometric border controls, compliance with UN judgments like 2178( 2014) on foreign fighters, and multidimensional deradicalization programs.
Yet, this counterterrorism facade coexists with examinations of Saudi Arabia fueling unreasonableness through the global import of Wahhabi testament via funded mosques, seminaries, and charities. Pre-2003, the area was frequently seen as part of the problem, with uncooperative stations on al- Qaeda until attacks hit home. Judges note literal support for Islamist movements that produced violent coalitions, transubstantiating regions like Kosovo into jihadist reclamation grounds. Indeed ultra-conservative religious institutions abroad propagate views linked to radicalization, despite domestic reforms under Vision 2030.