When FIFA awarded Saudi Arabia the hosting rights to the 2034 World Cup, it wasn’t just another tournament announcement — it was a symbol of just how low the sport’s governing body is willing to stoop in exchange for power and profit. Some countries may decide to be silent, but New Zealand Football has the moral responsibility to speak out. In fact, the All Whites need to go further: they should boycott the 2034 World Cup altogether.
A Regime With a Brutal Record
The decision to make Saudi Arabia the host has been condemned for reasons that extend far beyond the logistics of football. Human rights monitors like Reprieve have described the kingdom as “one of the world’s most brutal authoritarian regimes.” An ITV inquiry in 2023 reported that, since 2017, more than 21,000 migrant workers had died in Saudi Arabia. Others fear this figure will only grow as the World Cup approaches and massive construction begins on new stadiums.
And this is not the first time FIFA has been criticized over where it accepts bids to host its tournaments. Qatar, which hosted the 2022 World Cup, faced much the same criticism for its treatment of migrant laborers, its lack of LGBTQ+ rights and its oppressive system of government. But FIFA again brushed aside these and other serious concerns, voting to approve Saudi Arabia’s bid in a process that was almost nothing like an actual vote. The vote was unanimous by “acclamation” from the 211 FIFA member associations — in effect, a rubber stamp.
Why Should New Zealand Care?
One might say: What can a small nation like New Zealand do? Symbolic gestures can go a long way, particularly from countries like ours, and words matter in an ever-globalized dialogue like this. A public position against injustice by New Zealand Football (NZF) would carry international press weight and add pressure on FIFA and other footballing countries.
NZF’s response thus far has been disappointingly passive. The statement read: “The organization said in an official statement:
“With the hosts now decided, we congratulate both 2030 and 2034 FIFA World Cups’ best wishes to deliver the biggest sporting event on the planet… We look forward to unveiling how both tournaments will welcome a broad spectrum of guests and use the medium of sport to lead further social change.”
This neutral tone avoids the bigger picture: Saudi Arabia’s deeply troubling human rights record. Chief Executive Andrew Pragnell has not been available for further comment, but silence here speaks volumes.
A Track Record of Principles
New Zealand’s national teams have a proud tradition of fighting for the right thing. In June 2023, the All Whites refused to play the second half of a friendly against Qatar after defender Michael Boxall was allegedly racially abused and no action was taken. It was a brave and unusual stand in international soccer.
Chris Wood, team captain, has been vocal too in advocating for gender equality in the game. He championed equal pay and similar travel budgets for the Football Ferns, New Zealand’s women’s national team, in a campaign that helped bring equity to both sides of the sport.
The same spirit of moral clarity should inform the team’s decision about the 2034 tournament.
Sport or Sportswashing?
FIFA president Gianni Infantino has said many times that football is a force for good that can bring about good in the world. But the group’s recent moves indicate otherwise. At base level, money drives FIFA. The World Cup is its largest financial engine, and considering the oil-rich countries in which it is hosted guarantees revenue like no other.
In awarding the tournament to Saudi Arabia, FIFA has lost the last ethical red line.
When Politics Intersects With Sport
Some believe politics has no place in sport. But this line blurs when participation means endorsement. Saudi Arabia is already pouring billions into global sports in what critics deride as a “sportswashing” campaign — using the biggest events to hide human rights abuses. One is the recent acquisition of Newcastle United by a Saudi-run consortium, even as there is international anger over the killing of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi represented.
A Saudi Arabia World Cup will not be another tournament. It will be a global marketing campaign to transform the image of the kingdom—no matter the price in human lives or freedoms. It makes every team, every player and every fan complicit.
New Zealand’s Legacy of Protest
And let’s not forget that New Zealand has been in the lead on big ethical stands before. South Africa’s rugby tour of the UK in 1981 was a turning point in our social history, and it was the anti-apartheid protests that went with it. We took brave actions to declare New Zealand nuclear-free in the 1980s, despite the friction this caused with our international friends.
A boycott of the 2034 World Cup would just extend that proud tradition. It would send a message to the world: we care about human dignity more than a place in a tournament. It would demonstrate that no one will buy us.
What Would a Boycott Mean?
There are, of course, financial imperatives too. Just making it to the World Cup means millions in prize money, sponsorships and exposure. But some things are bigger than revenue. It [/NZF] is too late to stand up now and might cost NZF national level in the short term, but it could elevate New Zealand’s reputation globally in the long run.
I also noted that if one courageous nation takes the lead, other countries will inevitably follow. Collective resistance changes the world. Imagine a World Cup without Oceania, Europe or even some African nations. That would require FIFA to grapple with the fallout of its decisions.
It’s Time to Choose the Right Side of History
New Zealand can decide to host even if Saudi Arabia has the right of midway hosting. NZF cannot remain silent and the dutiful thing to do now is take a principled stand. A team well aware of its power to fight injustices, the All Whites should rise again to the challenge. At some point, sitting on the sidelines is not a choice anymore. When participation in itself is an endorsement.