How Could FIFA Award Saudi Arabia 2034 World Cup?

Last month, FIFA officially awarded Saudi Arabia the 2034 World Cup.

The Gulf Kingdom was the sole bidder after the Asian Football Confederation made it clear it would not support an Australian bid.




Supporters of the decision, including respected sports journalist Tracey Holmes, argue a World Cup in the kingdom offers a once-in-a-generation opportunity to foster positive change. A range of celebrities and players also congratulated the Saudi Arabian Football Association and Prime Minister Mohammed bin Salman.

Human rights groups, though, have widely condemned FIFA’s decision – Human Rights Watch warned:

[There is] a near certainty the 2034 World Cup […] will be stained with pervasive rights violations.

FIFA and human rights

FIFA claims it can encourage positive human rights transformations in host nations, and since 2017 it has enshrined human rights in its guiding principles.

In 2017, FIFA’s executive committee signed onto the so-called “Ruggie Principles”, adopted by the United Nations Human Rights Council unanimously in 2011.




These principles recognise that:

• states have the duty to protect human rights
• businesses have the responsibility to align their activities with human rights
• individuals and organisations need to have effective judicial and non-judicial remedies to human rights violations.

FIFA subsequently published its own Human Rights Policy. It makes a commitment for FIFA to “exercise its leverage, and seek to increase said leverage where necessary, in connection with adverse human rights impacts arising through its business relationships” and to “strive to go beyond its responsibility to respect human rights […] by taking measures to promote the protection of human rights.”

Querying recent World Cup hosts

Of course, FIFA’s own guidelines raise the question: does evidence support the claim that hosting a World Cup promotes human rights improvements?

There is very little reason to suspect the FIFA 2034 World Cup will lead to lasting change in Saudi Arabia. Mega events rarely result in lasting human rights improvements, especially when measured against their human costs.

The reason why sports mega-events do not change societies is because FIFA’s influence is very weak compared to the power of authoritarian rulers like Mohammed bin Salman (Saudi Arabia), Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani (Qatar), and Vladimir Putin (Russia).

These leaders are adept at taking on mega-events – in sports or otherwise – and using these events’ popularity to drive their own political agendas.

The Russian 2018 World Cup bid shows how little power FIFA has to change a government’s political agenda.

Russia allegedly won the cup after a fraudulent competitive process.

Then, legislators in Western Europe and the United States pressed FIFA to move the competition because of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and its alleged attacks on defectors in the United Kingdom. During the cup, LGBTQIA+ activists and journalists in Russia faced persecution from state security.




Ahead of the 2022 Qatar World Cup, Qatar promised to reform its human rights record. The government made changes to improve labour relations, but hundreds if not thousands died during the construction phase.

The Qataris made very few steps to improve rights for women, religious minorities, or LGBTQIA+ people. During the event, FIFA banned rainbow captains’ armbands, previously allowed, at the request of the Qatari government, which provoked protest from players.

Human rights and the Saudi bid

In July this year, FIFA published reports on the 2034 bid and its human rights strategy in connection with the World Cup.

FIFA’s executive summary of the 2034 bid assesses the risks of a human rights issue in 2034 as medium. However, it also says there is “good potential that hosting the competition could help contribute to positive human rights impacts”.

This comes despite the possibility of labour rights violations, identity-based discrimination, violations of the rights for the disabled, and the lack of freedom of expression.

The Saudi Arabian Football Association’s 28-page document makes no promises about press freedom. Nor does it mention LGBTQIA+ rights – Saudi law criminalises homosexuality and trans identity.

The report can offer no concrete assurances Saudi Arabia will protect religious freedom and minority rights.

What about labour rights?

The largest part of the Saudi Arabian Football Association’s report deals with labour relations. It promises to rectify the kingdom’s derisory labour rights after identifying widespread labour problems, including issues with welfare standards and forced labour.

However, the report also notes the kingdom has made several overhauls of labour law in the past two decades to improve working conditions.

Nevertheless, there are many reasons to doubt these promises.

The 2034 World Cup requires an astounding 11 new stadiums, transport networks, and the construction of almost 200,000 new hotel rooms.




The kingdom’s construction boom is already fuelled by approximately 13 million migrant labourers working under dire conditions. A Guardian investigation discovered high numbers of excess deaths among migrant labourers in Saudi Arabia, particularly those from Bangladesh. In 2022 alone, 1,500 Bangladeshi migrant workers died.

Why give the World Cup to authoritarian regimes?

So why does FIFA maintain that awarding hosting rights to problematic countries is a chance to drive positive change when the evidence suggests the opposite?

FIFA can only award the hosting rights to countries that bid for the World Cup. The increasingly high costs of hosting mean few countries are willing to sign onto the hosting responsibilities.

Australia was willing to host in 2034, but crucially it did not have the support of the Asian Football Confederation.

Saudi Arabia simply was willing to spend what it took to ensure their bid won. This is possibly another example of their broader effort to “sportswash” their regime’s human rights records.

For FIFA, it makes sense to award bidding rights to countries that can generate revenue through co-partnerships, sponsorships, and most importantly favourable TV contracts. In this regard, Saudi Arabia’s bid makes the most sense.