A recent report in The Kathmandu Post details the case of hundreds of Nepali migrant workers stranded in Saudi Arabia after their employer company collapsed, leaving them unpaid for months and marooned due to expired visas and slow exit‑permit procedures. The episode highlights acute labour‑rights and repatriation failures, including prolonged wage delays, employer accountability gaps, and weak consular and diplomatic support mechanisms. In the context of Saudi Arabia’s hosting of the 2034 FIFA World Cup, the situation raises serious questions about alignment with FIFA’s human‑rights policies and labour‑protection standards, particularly on migrant‑worker welfare, transparency, and accountability. It also intensifies global concerns about sportswashing, ethical hosting, and the risks faced by millions of migrant workers who will underpin the tournament’s infrastructure and operations.
Stranded Nepali workers in Saudi Arabia: key facts
The Kathmandu Post reports that 469 Nepali migrant workers have been stranded in Saudi Arabia for about eight months after Sendan International Company, their employer, went bankrupt. The workers say they have not received wages for periods of up to a year, leaving them without basic income and unable to cover living costs or return home. Many housed in the same labour camp say their residency permits have expired, entangling them in Saudi immigration procedures and complicating repatriation.
The article notes that only 206 workers from one camp have completed biometric submissions to begin the exit‑permit process, while the Saudi Labour Department has told the Nepali Embassy in Riyadh that issuing full exit permits could take another month. Kabiraj Uprety, labour counsellor at the Nepali Embassy, explicitly frames the repatriation as a time‑consuming administrative task, underscoring the structural delays that deepen the workers’ vulnerability. This incident is not isolated; previous Kathmandu Post coverage has documented earlier episodes of Nepali workers stranded in Saudi Arabia over unpaid wages and sudden employer termination, highlighting systemic patterns rather than one‑off failures.
Labour‑rights and governance red flags in Saudi Arabia
From the angle of global labour governance, the case exposes several critical shortcomings. First, the prolonged wage non‑payment for up to a year indicates a breakdown in timely wage enforcement, even as Saudi Arabia has introduced standardised employment contracts and limited reforms to the kafala‑derived sponsorship system since around 2018. The Kathmandu Post’s figures show that contractual obligations are not being honoured in practice, suggesting weak inspection and penalty mechanisms for employers who default on salaries.
Second, the article underscores the absence of robust employer‑safety nets. When Sendan International collapsed, workers were left without salaries, exit permits, or immediate alternative arrangements, revealing a lack of insolvency‑linked protections that would shield workers from corporate collapse. Human‑rights watchdogs have previously warned that Saudi Arabia’s labour regime still permits wage theft, restricts independent union activity, and limits effective redress for migrant workers, risks that are now playing out concretely in the Nepali workers’ experience.
Third, the repatriation bottleneck—expired visas, slow exit‑permit processing, and a one‑month projection for clearance—points to governance and administrative gaps. In a country hosting mega‑events that will rely heavily on migrant labour, such delays risk turning short‑term employment schemes into protracted limbo for thousands of workers, especially if disputes or insolvencies multiply.
Alignment with FIFA’s human‑rights and hosting standards
FIFA’s human‑rights framework, as applied to World Cup host nations, explicitly requires host countries to respect and protect the rights of all workers, including migrants, and to mitigate risks linked to large‑scale construction and operations. The organisation’s own bidding and hosting requirements oblige bidders to outline human‑rights strategies and conduct independent context assessments, yet reports indicate that Saudi Arabia’s 2034 bid documents largely ignore documented labour abuses and enforcement gaps.
The stranded Nepali workers’ situation contrasts sharply with FIFA’s stated expectation that host countries should prevent wage theft, ensure safe working conditions, and provide accessible grievance mechanisms. Where The Kathmandu Post reports workers going months without pay, living in camps with no clear exit route, the case illustrates a failure to operationalise the very protections that FIFA claims to safeguard. Critics, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty‑linked coalitions, have argued that FIFA’s evaluation of the Saudi bid downplayed these kinds of labour‑rights risks, treating them as political or technical rather than as core human‑rights obligations.
Equally, FIFA’s call for transparency and accountability around host‑country labour practices is undercut by the opacity that envelops episodes like the Sendan collapse. The article does not attribute detailed accountability or punitive measures to the Saudi authorities vis‑à‑vis the bankrupt firm, suggesting limited public follow‑through on enforcement that would reassure international stakeholders. For a tournament branding itself as adhering to global human‑rights norms, this gap between standards and practice presents a reputational and ethical liability.
Systemic gaps in worker welfare systems
Beyond the immediate humanitarian crisis, the Kathmandu Post case reveals structural weaknesses in the welfare architecture for migrant workers. Wage‑delay and non‑payment mechanisms are not sufficiently insulated from corporate volatility; when firms collapse, workers’ rights are treated as secondary to commercial or visa‑control priorities. Although Saudi Arabia has introduced some reforms—such as partial decoupling of visas from individual employers and standardised contracts—these changes have not guaranteed timely payment or rapid repatriation in cases of insolvency.
Exit‑permit and visa‑clearance procedures also appear poorly calibrated to mass‑repatriation scenarios. The embassy’s estimate that exit permits may take about a month reflects a bureaucratic speed that is ill suited to the rapid‑onset crises that can accompany employer collapse or project cancellation. For a country preparing to host a World Cup whose construction and services will involve millions of migrant workers, this signals a risk that future labour‑related crises could unfold on a far larger scale, with limited emergency‑response capacity.
Moreover, the article indirectly points to limitations in consular protection. While the Nepali Embassy’s labour counsellor is engaged in coordinating repatriation, the protracted timeline suggests that bilateral diplomatic and financial arrangements are not robust enough to prevent or quickly resolve such standstills. In the World‑Cup‑preparation phase, the absence of strong, pre‑negotiated funds or rapid‑response mechanisms for stranded workers could leave many labourers exposed to similar fates.
Concerns for international stakeholders and civil society
The stranded workers’ ordeal raises legitimate concerns for fans, sponsors, and host‑country partners of the 2034 World Cup. Human‑rights groups, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch affiliates, have repeatedly warned that Saudi Arabia’s labour regime exposes migrant workers to exploitation, unsafe conditions, and wage abuse, precisely the kind of pattern visible in the Nepali case. If such incidents are replicated or amplified under the umbrella of World‑Cup‑related projects, supporters and corporate partners may face reputational backlash for association with a tournament that relies on vulnerable labour.
Trade‑union and diaspora coalitions have already filed formal complaints with bodies such as the International Labour Organization, arguing that FIFA and Saudi Arabia are failing to uphold labour‑rights obligations ahead of the 2034 event. The Kathmandu Post’s account of unpaid wages, sudden employer collapse, and slow exit‑permit processing offers concrete, on‑the‑ground evidence that these fears are not hypothetical but grounded in existing labour‑market realities.
Civil‑society actors are likely to use cases like this to demand stronger independent monitoring, third‑party audits of labour conditions, and enforceable remedies for workers during World‑Cup preparations. Without such measures, the risk is that the 2034 tournament will be haunted by allegations of complicity in labour abuse, even as FIFA and Saudi authorities promote the event as a symbol of reform and modernisation.
Sportswashing, ethical hosting, and global accountability
The episode of stranded Nepali workers also feeds into the broader debate about “sportswashing”—the use of major sporting events to deflect criticism of human‑rights and governance shortcomings. Saudi Arabia has invested heavily in global sports assets, from football leagues to golf and Formula 1, while continuing to face scrutiny over labour practices and political repression. The Kathmandu Post case illustrates how overseas labour markets can become a front line for this tension: workers are essential to the country’s economy and to its ability to host mega‑events, yet their rights are often secondary to broader geopolitical and commercial objectives.
In the context of the 2034 World Cup, the incident underscores the need for tougher ethical hosting criteria. Rather than relying solely on government‑submitted “human‑rights strategies” that critics describe as superficial, FIFA and host nations could be required to demonstrate concrete, independently verified protections for migrant workers, including liquidity for wage guarantees and rapid‑response mechanisms for stranded workers. International sports‑governance standards must evolve to treat labour‑rights failures as disqualifying risks, not manageable by‑products of mega‑event hosting.
At the same time, source‑country governments such as Nepal have a role in enforcing stricter vetting of recruiting agencies and ensuring that workers are not pushed into opaque employment chains that leave them stranded abroad. The interplay between host‑country governance, global sports‑governance frameworks, and source‑country oversight defines the ethical landscape of modern mega‑events; the Nepali workers’ crisis in Saudi Arabia is a stark reminder that the current architecture still leaves too many workers exposed.