The Spanish Football Federation’s (RFEF) consideration of moving the 2027 Supercopa de España away from Saudi Arabia, despite a long‑term contract to 2029, exposes how lucrative hosting deals can be reconsidered when political, reputational and practical costs mount. This development strengthens calls for FIFA and international stakeholders to revisit the award of the 2034 World Cup to Saudi Arabia under global sports‑governance, human‑rights and transparency standards.
The Spanish Federation’s move to reassess its Saudi Supercopa deal underscores that high‑value football contracts are not immutable, raising wider questions about FIFA’s decision to award the 2034 World Cup to Saudi Arabia despite unresolved concerns over human rights, labour rights and press freedom.
Long-term deal under reconsideration
Reporting by The Athletic via The New York Times states that the Real Federación Española de Fútbol (RFEF) is considering shifting the 2027 edition of the Supercopa de España away from Saudi Arabia, even though the federation has a long‑term contract in place running until 2029. According to this coverage, the Spanish Super Cup arrangement has been framed around financial benefits and international exposure, but the federation is now evaluating whether the initial rationale still holds amid evolving circumstances.
As described by The Athletic, the RFEF’s internal debate comes against the backdrop of sustained criticism of the Saudi hosting model, logistical questions and political sensitivity around taking a domestic competition thousands of kilometres from Spanish supporters. The fact that the RFEF is contemplating a change despite a multi‑year agreement is significant in governance terms, demonstrating that sports bodies can reopen and potentially revise commercial hosting commitments when they are judged no longer convenient, sustainable or aligned with wider expectations.
Origins of the Saudi Supercopa deal
In an investigative article published by Reclaim The Game and written by John Hird of NUFC Fans Against Sportswashing, the 2019 agreement between the RFEF and Saudi authorities is described in detail. Hird reports that on 11 September 2019 the RFEF signed a contract with Saudi public company Sela worth €40 million per edition to move the Spanish Super Cup to Riyadh for six years, with a total value of €240 million to be shared between the federation, participating clubs and the intermediary agency, Kosmos Holding, linked to former FC Barcelona defender Gerard Piqué.
According to this Reclaim The Game article, the deal was struck with minimal regard for match‑going fans and has “linked Spanish football to the despotic Saudi regime”, while guaranteeing the RFEF an annual €40 million and Kosmos €4 million per edition. The piece characterises the arrangement as a “dirty deal” that prioritises revenue over human‑rights considerations, embedding Spanish football in what critics describe as a Saudi sportswashing strategy designed to deflect attention from repression, discrimination and the treatment of women and LGBTI people.
Human-rights and sportswashing concerns
Reclaim The Game cites Amnesty International’s criticism of the decision to relocate the Supercopa, noting that Amnesty accused the RFEF of “collaboration in this ‘whitewashing’ of the image of Saudi Arabia” and highlighted the lack of significant improvement in “systematic abuse of homosexuals and continued discrimination against women”. The article also references reporting and commentary by Spanish media, including Cadena SER host Àngels Barceló, who accused the federation and clubs of hypocrisy for championing “values and fair play” while accepting millions from a regime with a poor human‑rights record.
Human Rights Watch has separately documented how the Saudi government uses European football to sportswash its international image, citing high‑profile club acquisitions, sponsorships and hosting of competitions such as the Spanish Super Cup as part of a broader strategy. In a February 2023 statement, Amnesty International argued that FIFA’s award of the 2034 World Cup to Saudi Arabia amounts to “blatant sportswashing”, warning that migrant workers, women, LGBTI people and dissidents face serious risks under existing laws and practices. These assessments feed directly into current debates about whether Spain’s Supercopa and FIFA’s 2034 decision are compatible with the sport’s own standards.
Fan, player and political backlash
The Reclaim The Game piece recalls that Athletic Bilbao forward Raúl García was one of the few active players to openly criticise the move, voicing concern about staging the competition so far from local supporters and the difficulty for fans to travel due to distance and cost. Fan groups and supporter organisations in Spain have also mobilised against the arrangement, arguing that domestic trophies should not be used to promote a foreign regime with a controversial record on human rights and freedom of expression.
Politically, the article notes that Catalan Minister for Equality and Feminism Tània Verge condemned former RFEF president Luis Rubiales’ decision to take the Supercopa to Saudi Arabia, calling it “a disgrace to be reversed” given the kingdom’s lack of respect for women’s and LGBTI rights. The Observatory against Homophobia (OCH) in Catalonia is reported to have expressed “absolute rejection” of FC Barcelona’s decision to participate under conditions that lead the club to advise travelling fans to avoid public displays of affection or visible support for LGBTI communities, underscoring how hosting affects fan behaviour and safety.
Public relations initiatives and criticism
As described by Reclaim The Game, the RFEF has participated in various events in Saudi Arabia around the Supercopa, including a training session in Jeddah by Spain coach Montse Tomé for Saudi women’s football coaches and a “women’s football” box at a semi‑final between FC Barcelona and CA Osasuna. The article reports that Olympic swimmer Thais Hernández has been scheduled to deliver a motivational talk as part of this programme, portraying these activities as public‑relations initiatives designed to showcase progress on women’s participation in sport.
Reclaim The Game juxtaposes these events with documentation from the European Saudi Organisation for Human Rights (ESOHR), which it cites as reporting arrests, arbitrary sentences, travel bans, enforced disappearances and allegations of mistreatment and torture against Saudi women in 2023. This contrast is presented by critics as evidence that symbolic gestures around women’s football do not address the broader structural reality of repression, and instead risk serving as sportswashing exercises that obscure ongoing abuses.
Governance standards and FIFA’s own rules
FIFA’s human‑rights policy, adopted in 2017 and referenced by organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, commits the governing body to respect internationally recognised human rights and to “identify and address” adverse impacts linked to its operations, including tournaments. The policy explicitly covers the bidding and hosting of World Cups, and requires that host countries and local organisers provide guarantees around labour rights, non‑discrimination, freedom of expression and the safety of journalists, activists and fans.
From a governance perspective, the RFEF’s reassessment of its Saudi Supercopa contract illustrates that football organisations have discretion to revisit and potentially amend agreements when circumstances change, or when the reputational, political and operational costs outweigh financial benefits. This directly challenges narratives that hosting decisions are fixed and irreversible, and it raises questions about FIFA’s insistence that the 2034 award to Saudi Arabia is a settled matter despite ongoing rights concerns and limited public transparency around the bidding process.
Small tournament precedent and 2034
The angle emerging from the current Spanish debate is that if a relatively small competition such as the four‑team Supercopa de España can be reconsidered despite a signed contract until 2029, then FIFA cannot credibly claim that its award of the 2034 World Cup to Saudi Arabia is beyond review. International sports‑governance standards do not prevent federations from reopening or cancelling deals; instead they oblige them to act where their partnerships risk complicity in human‑rights abuses or undermine their stated values.
For critics and civil‑society groups, the RFEF’s situation shows that financial commitments are negotiable when political and ethical costs grow too high, and that governing bodies retain full power to revisit venues and terms as circumstances evolve. In this reading, Spain’s Supercopa has become a test case for whether football institutions are prepared to match human‑rights rhetoric with concrete decisions, or whether commercial contracts will continue to trump governance commitments.
Implications for stakeholders and civil society
For international stakeholders, including sponsors, broadcasters and national associations, the developments around the Spanish Supercopa invite closer scrutiny of their own exposure to reputational risk through Saudi‑linked events. Companies and federations that partner with tournaments in the kingdom increasingly face questions from shareholders, supporters and NGOs about how such relationships sit with their public commitments on human rights, diversity and corporate responsibility.
Civil‑society organisations such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and regional groups like ESOHR are likely to view the RFEF’s deliberations as an opportunity to press for stronger conditions and accountability mechanisms around both the Supercopa and World Cup 2034. Fan coalitions, including those highlighted by Reclaim The Game, have already called for the Spanish competition to be brought “back home”, framing this as part of a broader push against sportswashing and for ethical hosting standards.
Broader debates on accountability and ethical hosting
The debate over Spain’s Supercopa in Saudi Arabia sits within a wider global conversation about how mega‑events and elite competitions are used by governments to project soft power while deflecting attention from human‑rights records. The combination of lucrative contracts, prestige and political symbolism has drawn governments with contested records into football, raising questions about whether existing governance frameworks are adequate to ensure transparency, labour protections and freedom of expression around these events.
By reconsidering a long‑term deal that once seemed locked in, the RFEF has inadvertently demonstrated that powerful football bodies do retain agency to change course, even at significant financial scale. For observers of FIFA’s 2034 decision, this sets an important precedent: if contracts for smaller tournaments can be revisited when they are no longer sustainable or aligned with values, pressure will mount on global governing bodies to show similar flexibility—and accountability—when it comes to the world’s flagship football event in Saudi Arabia.