In 10 years — give or take six months — the 2034 men’s World Cup will be played in Saudi Arabia.
Its confirmation as the tournament host will be waved through today (Wednesday) and has been expected since Australia withdrew from the bidding process in October last year — but it makes the development no less controversial.
Human-rights groups have criticised Saudi’s suitability to stage the finals since even before it formally expressed an interest last year in doing so — with many of the misgivings being similar to the questions posed towards the 2022 World Cup when that was awarded to Gulf region neighbour Qatar. These concerns include the treatment of migrant workers, women and the LGBTQ+ community, as well as the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
Separate issues noted include sustainability, the weather and the supporter experience.
In its evaluation report, FIFA graded Saudi’s bid as the strongest to have ever been made by a potential World Cup host. To the fury of campaigners, they only graded the country’s human rights as a medium risk.
There is a sharp contrast between what FIFA and tournament organisers say the 2034 World Cup will be, and what many fear it will transform into.
At the previous World Cup in Qatar two years ago, FIFA asked federations to “focus on the football” amid similar questions.
Here are the off-field issues many have concerns about.
So what’s happened?
Two weeks ago, late on a Friday evening, FIFA released its evaluations for both the 2030 and 2034 World Cup bids. It awarded Saudi Arabia’s bid a score of 4.2 (out of five) — the highest in the organisation’s history, citing “a unique, innovative and ambitious vision for the ‘next century’ of FIFA World Cups”.
Human-rights groups reacted with anger, accusing FIFA of complicity in Saudi’s alleged abuses.
“As expected, FIFA’s evaluation of Saudi Arabia’s World Cup bid is an astonishing whitewash of the country’s atrocious human rights record,” said Steve Cockburn, Amnesty International’s head of labour rights and sport. “There are no meaningful commitments that will prevent workers from being exploited, residents from being evicted or activists from being arrested.
“By ignoring the clear evidence of severe human-rights risks, FIFA is likely to bear much responsibility for the violations and abuses that will take place over the coming decade.
“Fundamental human-rights reforms are urgently required in Saudi Arabia, or the 2034 World Cup will be inevitably tarnished by exploitation, discrimination and repression.”
Why will the Saudi bid stand unopposed?
Well, here’s the first controversy. FIFA has rules which state that, after a country hosts a World Cup, no other national from that continental football federation is allowed to stage one for the next two editions.
In theory, that is meant to ensure the World Cup is truly a global event — for example, that the wealthier federations in Europe do not monopolise the tournament every four years. This regulation was voted for by FIFA members — though it has faced criticism for its ability to be manipulated.
For 2034, for example, only two continents were capable of bidding. CONCACAF (North and Central America and the Caribbean) was not eligible because the United States, Canada and Mexico are co-hosting the World Cup in 2026. Then, in 2030, an unprecedented three federations will hold matches — Spain, Portugal (both in Europe’s UEFA) and Morocco (Africa’s CAF) will be the main hosts, with Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay (of South America’s CONMEBOL) staging one match each as part of the World Cup’s 100th anniversary celebrations (the first tournament in 1934 was in Uruguay).
Under FIFA regulations, that leaves only two eligible federations — the AFC (Asia) and OFC (Oceania — New Zealand and the Pacific Island nations).
With Saudi Arabia, a member of the former, making its interest clear to rival associations, only one other nation explored a possible bid — Australia, an Asian nation in football and which has never hosted the men’s World Cup, but staged a successful women’s version, co-hosting with New Zealand, in 2023 and has been the home of two summer Olympics.
However, two years after beginning the preparation process, Football Australia announced they would not submit a final bid.
“I don’t like to throw darts at a dartboard,” said Football Australia CEO James Johnson at the time. “When we weigh up these decisions, I like to bet on sure things.”
Contributing factors included the accelerated bidding process — which stymied Australia’s ability to strike deals with several stadiums from other sports — as well as the high cost of hosting and the country’s desire not to anger other federation members in the AFC. Instead, they will target the 2026 Women’s Asian Cup and the Club World Cup three years later.
After Australia’s withdrawal, and with no other viable bids forthcoming, Saudi stood alone — hosts for 2034 by default.
Will it be another winter tournament?
We don’t know that yet. Qatar hosted a tournament in the northern hemisphere’s winter, rather than the World Cup’s traditional summer slot, owing to the Gulf region’s hot and arid climate — a shift that was announced in 2015. In theory, this leaves Saudi Arabia until at least 2027 to make a similar announcement, with the same amount of preparation time.
Ahead of Qatar 2022, a winter World Cup attracted criticism because of the disruption to the domestic calendar in football nations across the world and a perceived added risk of injury for players — although there is not yet any clear evidence that the latter occurred.
In their bid evaluation report, FIFA revealed that the Saudi bid had not offered a proposed window for the tournament to be played, but that the organisers would “determine the optimal timing”. No timeline has yet been established.
Why does Saudi Arabia want to host it?
Publicly, the Saudi Arabian government insists the reason for its sporting expansion is to create investment opportunities, improve public health in the country and develop a sporting infrastructure. It is keen to improve the statistic that some 60 per cent of the Saudi population are overweight or obese.
One aim, given by Yasser Al Misehal, the president of the Saudi Arabian Football Federation, is to increase the number of registered male players there from 21,000 to more than 200,000. He did not mention a target for female ones.
The @Saudi2034bid is inspiring so many young footballers with the promise of #GrowingTogether and it was a pleasure to meet some of those kids who are dreaming of welcoming the world to Saudi Arabia in 2034. 🏆 pic.twitter.com/UiAdh89Wlg
— Cristiano Ronaldo (@Cristiano) December 5, 2024
But there is more to it than that.
Saudi Arabia’s crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, is on a mission to change how his country is seen both internationally and by its 37 million inhabitants.
The central policy for achieving this is Vision 2030 — a series of programmes and developments intended to diversify Saudi’s economy away from fossil fuels, to offset the country’s poor human-rights reputation, and to appease its rapidly-growing and young population. The majority of Saudi’s geopolitical activity can and should be viewed through this prism.
Sport has become one of Vision 2030’s pillars — and the 2034 World Cup will be its crowning glory.
Why have there been concerns over migrant workers?
The World Cup — and Vision 2030 more widely — will rely on vast manpower.
According to a recent report from Human Rights Watch, there are 13.4 million migrant workers in Saudi Arabia, amounting to around 42 per cent of the population. Both numbers are expected to increase significantly. Multiple concerns have been raised over their rights, with allegations of illegal recruitment fees, exposure to extreme heat, wage theft, and uninvestigated thefts.
For example, in June, The Athletic reported on conditions which amounted to modern slavery at the warehouses of Newcastle United sponsor Noon.com in capital city Riyadh. When contacted over that article, Newcastle, Manchester City — regional partners of Noon — and PIF declined to comment. A Noon spokesperson referred to the size, scope and sophistication of the company’s operation, and denied all the claims, saying: “Noon strongly refutes these allegations as grossly inaccurate misrepresentations. The company’s commitment to employee welfare is fundamental to its operations. As a result, Noon adheres to and, where possible, exceeds, industry global best practices.
“The company maintains full compliance with local health and safety standards and applicable laws, reinforced by stringent internal and independent audit processes. Our entire approach to employee welfare is underpinned by real-time insights from our state-of-the-art data systems.”
Similar questions were asked in the build-up to the Qatar World Cup — where around 90 per cent of that country’s inhabitants are migrant workers.
While FIFA and the organising committee claimed just three workers died in Qatar, this only relates to deaths during working hours at stadiums under construction, rather than deaths outside of working hours or on tangential World Cup projects, such as hotels or stations.
NGOs agree there were thousands of unexplained worker deaths in the years leading up to the 2022 tournament. On the same evening as FIFA released its bid evaluations, it also published a long-awaited report into worker rights in Qatar, which recommended the governing body “has a responsibility” to compensate those affected. FIFA chose to reject this recommendation, instead donating to four projects which will not directly remedy migrant workers.
In Saudi, in which workers face comparable conditions, there are fears their exploitation will be repeated — but with Saudi being roughly 12 times the size of Qatar, on a far larger scale.
For example, according to government data obtained by Human Rights Watch, 884 Bangladeshi workers died in Saudi between January and July this year. Eighty per cent of these deaths were attributed to “natural causes”.
“The human engine powering the construction of Saudi Arabia’s multibillion-dollar giga-projects is the migrant workforce, who are facing widespread rights violations in Saudi Arabia without any recourse,” said Michael Page, the organisation’s deputy Middle East director, in a report released this month.
“FIFA’s fake evaluation process to award the 2034 World Cup without legally binding human-rights commitments will come at an unimaginable human cost, including adverse intergenerational impacts on migrant workers and their families.”
In 2021, Saudi reformed its kafala laws, a system of regulations which limit worker freedoms, but human-rights groups have still reported issues.
“I was paid on time for the first two months, but never thereafter,” one migrant worker told Human Rights Watch. “When I asked my manager for payment, he would answer, ‘Die first, and I’ll pay you later’.”
Answering criticisms that the Saudis have not made suitable commitments in these areas FIFA emphasises the Saudis have committed to “equitable wages”, as well as “decent working and living conditions for all individuals involved in the preparation and delivery of the FIFA World Cup, including through the establishment of a workers’ welfare system to monitor compliance with labour rights standards for tournament-related workers”.
They also say the organisers will “engage with the International Labour Organisation (ILO) in relation to its commitment to upholding international labour standards in all activities associated with the competition”.
Why have women’s safety groups opposed it?
Under Saudi Arabia’s male guardianship system, women face a vast range of restrictions throughout their lives. Every Saudi woman must have a guardian, usually a family member, who has the power to make decisions on her behalf.
Restrictions include a limited ability to travel, forced and child marriages, employment discrimination, healthcare discrimination, and inequality in divorce and inheritance proceedings. Other issues include high rates of domestic violence, while reformers face the risk of political repression.
In the weeks before the nation ended its ban on women being allowed to drive in June 2018, authorities arrested dozens of prominent women’s rights activists.
One of these was Loujain Al Hathloul, arrested and charged with “attempting to destabilise the kingdom”, whose sister Lina has become a prominent human rights activist at ALQST.
“We cannot say that Saudi Arabia is a ‘medium risk’ country, given that it has become a pure police state,” said Lina, ahead of Saudi Arabia being confirmed as host.
Bin Salman has stated that enhanced freedoms are part of Vision 2030, but questions remain. In 2022, Saudi passed the Personal Status Law (PSL), which, while lauded as a major reform by the state, was criticised by human-rights groups such as Amnesty International as codifying discrimination against women.
“Although framed by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman as a step towards progress and equality, Saudi Arabia’s Personal Status Law fails to respect women’s agency in making crucial decisions about their lives and the lives of their children and perpetuates discrimination against them,” said Heba Morayef, Amnesty International’s regional director for the Middle East and North Africa.
There have also been historical issues for women reporting sexual violence, which have led to fears surrounding how allegations will be handed at the World Cup. In Qatar, similar issues were raised surrounding whether cases of sexual violence could be reclassified by local police as examples of extramarital affairs, with the accuser subsequently facing possible charges.
UK government advice is for victims of sexual violence to inform their embassy before the police, and warns that “the attacker and the victim may be in the same room during the investigation and the victim’s identity may not be kept confidential”.
Organisers and FIFA say the 2034 tournament will benefit women’s football in Saudi, stating in the bid evaluation that the nation has “made significant strides in developing interest and grassroots participation for women and girls… at the elite level, it has established two leagues, registered more than 1,000 players, and seen its women’s team secure its first successes”.
There is no mention of women’s rights, outside of developing women’s football in the nation, in FIFA’s bid evaluation.
GO DEEPER
‘The same people who allow women to play tennis are also torturing the activists’
Will it be safe for LGBTQ+ supporters?
Same-sex sexual activity is illegal in Saudi Arabia under Sharia law. The maximum sentence which can be imposed is the death penalty.
According to the Human Dignity Trust, a charity which provides legal protections to the LGBTQ+ community globally: “There is substantial evidence of the law being enforced in recent years, with LGBT people being frequently subject to arrest… some of those arrested have been executed by authorities.”
In recent years, Saudi’s use of the death penalty has been widely criticised by the international community. As of December 6, 306 people have been executed there this year, the highest total in the country’s history. Concerns have also been raised over the safety of trans people, with strict dress codes in place under Sharia law.
In May 2023, the official guidance from the Saudi Tourism Authority changed its response to a question entitled ‘Are LGBT visitors welcome to visit Saudi Arabia?’ to read: “Everyone is welcome to visit Saudi Arabia and visitors are not asked to disclose such personal details.”
No assurances are given over whether individuals will be arrested for any same-sex sexual activity.
The Athletic reported on the experiences of Saudi Arabia’s LGBTQ+ community in October 2021.
Neither the Saudi bid’s human rights strategy nor FIFA’s bid evaluation mentions LGBTQ+ rights specifically. The closest FIFA’s evaluation comes to addressing the issue is stating: “As part of the Human Rights Strategy, the bidder commits to ensuring a secure and inclusive tournament environment free from discrimination through the implementation of policies, procedures and educational measures to address discrimination in the tournament context.”
And what about Jamal Khashoggi?
Khashoggi was a Saudi Arabian journalist who had written critically about the nation and had been forced to flee his homeland in 2017.
Writing for U.S. newspaper The Washington Post, he subsequently visited the Saudi embassy in the Turkish city of Istanbul to secure a marriage licence. There, he was killed and dismembered by a 15-member squad of Saudi assassins, who had flown into Turkey on a plane owned by PIF, the country’s public investment fund.
The Turkish authorities, a CIA report, and a United Nations (UN) investigation have blamed Bin Salman, PIF’s chairman, for ordering the murder. He denies the killing was carried out on his request but took “full responsibility” in an interview with U.S. TV show 60 Minutes in 2019, acknowledging it was carried out by individuals working for the Saudi government. Several alleged perpetrators were later sentenced to death by a Saudi court.
Saudi was subsequently sanctioned by several countries — and faced major questions over press freedom in the nation.
What human-rights assurances have Saudi and FIFA given?
FIFA’s bid evaluation makes bold claims about Saudi Arabia’s human-rights guarantees. For example, it says the bid made commitments about “respecting, protecting and fulfilling internationally recognised human rights”, including areas of “safety and security, labour rights of migrant workers, rights of children, gender equality and non-discrimination, as well as freedom of expression (including press freedom)”.
It later outlines “a commitment to ensuring that the country’s penal code and respective criminal procedures relating to detention and fair trial align with best practice and international standards”.
However, FIFA’s explanation is prefaced with a justification.
In 2016, FIFA commissioned a report from Professor John G Ruggie, a former UN special representative for human rights, to delineate their human-rights expectations. Within, it states that FIFA should only take into account proposed improvements, rather than the base level of human-rights in a country.
“This is about making decisions based on evidence of how effectively bidders intend to address human rights risks connected with a tournament,” the report reads. “It is not about peremptorily excluding countries based on their general human-rights context.”
Saudi also submitted an independent human-rights context assessment, conducted by law firm Clifford Chance, but this was widely criticised by 11 human-rights organisations as “flawed” and risks FIFA being “linked to abuses which result” from the tournament. Clifford Chance did not address this point in response to the rights groups or when The Athletic contacted the firm for comment. They also did not respond when asked by The Athletic how a report commissioned by and paid for by the Saudi Football Federation can claim to be an “independent” assessment. FIFA did not respond when asked whether they have any concerns about whether the integrity of the report is compromised.
They say the report excluded a large number of internationally recognised human rights from its assessment, that “credible external stakeholders” were not consulted, and that it was “highly selective (in its) use of the findings and assessments”. FIFA did not respond to any specific points raised.
Noticeably, Saudi’s tournament organisers subject themselves to fewer voluntary human-rights checks than the bidders for the 2030 World Cup.
For example, Spain, Portugal, and Morocco have already undergone “three independent human-rights context assessments” and delivered bespoke strategies. And while questions remain about the nation’s commitment to liberalising LGBTQ+ laws, Morocco is already working with the National Human Rights Institution (NHRI) on several areas including stadium construction and press freedom. There are far more particularities outlined than in the Saudi 2034 bid.
What about other issues? Sustainability, for example
Despite the nation’s stated desire to diversify its economy, Saudi Arabia is still largely reliant on the oil industry. Paying for the 2034 World Cup will be a massive investment — and that means its new stadiums will be funded by fossil fuel sales.
In 2023, analysts at campaign group LINGO calculated that Saudi oil and gas projects will kill 43 million people and cause global damages of $80billion (£62.7bn).
Fossil Free Football, a collective campaigning to remove fossil fuel advertising from the sport, has described the World Cup as “strengthening” Saudi’s goals of “continuing a decades-long strategic campaign aimed at slowing the international shift away from fossil fuels… manifested in ‘wrecking ball’ tactics at recent COP29 negotiations (a UN climate change conference) and a plan to hook developing countries on its oil.”
Nevertheless, FIFA insists that “Vision 2030 incorporates Saudi Arabia’s existing commitment to sustainability as a country, and is supported by national environmental targets”.
In 2016, FIFA committed to reducing its emissions by 50 per cent by 2030 and reaching net zero by 2040 as part of the UN’s Sports for Climate Action Framework. In the bid book, it does not address this target. However, it does state that “the bidder proposes using existing buildings and infrastructure where feasible”.
Yet at the same time, the bid will involve the building of 11 new stadiums, eight of which will be in Riyadh. Three of the 11 are under construction now, with another eight already planned under the country’s “long-term stadium strategy”. It is unclear whether stadiums which were “already planned” will be included in sustainability calculations.
It also remains to be seen whether the Saudi bid will use carbon-offsetting projects to hit FIFA targets. In Qatar two years ago, concerns were raised about the quality of these programmes. Last June, it was found FIFA breached Swiss Federal Law in claiming that 2022 World Cup was carbon-neutral.
Another issue is sponsorship — with FIFA’s sponsors often criticised for their environmental impact. For example, over 130 female footballers signed a letter protesting against the body’s deal with Aramco, Saudi Arabia’s state oil company.
“As well as funding the Saudi regime, Aramco is one of the biggest polluters of the planet we all call home,” said reigning Olympic champions Canada’s captain Jessie Fleming. “In taking Aramco’s sponsorship, FIFA is choosing money over women’s safety and the safety of the planet — and that’s something we as players are standing against, together.”
In response to the open letter, FIFA emphasised that revenue generated through partnerships such as the Aramco deal is reinvested into the development of the women’s game.
The Saudi bid stated that Aramco has pursued “world-leading initiatives to address its carbon footprint, including flaring reduction, carbon capture and storage, detection of methane leaks, and investments in solar and wind projects”. However, according to Fossil Fuel Football, there are “significant issues with all of these methods”. Analysis from the Carbon Majors database calculated Aramco was the third-largest polluter globally and the largest state-owned fossil fuel producer.
World Cup sponsors in 2022 also included Qatar Airways, fossil-fuel supplier QatarEnergy and Coca-Cola, the world’s leading plastic polluter.
FIFA has not stated how its sponsorship policy intersects with its climate policy.
What development is being planned? What’s Neom?
Part of the reason environmental activists are so concerned is due to the scale of development set to take place — though FIFA can argue that much of this was set to be introduced regardless as part of Vision 2030.
The most dramatic of these is Neom — a vast but yet-to-be-built city on the Red Sea coast, deep in the desert in the country’s north-west, planned to be the size of Belgium. This was slated to include a project known as The Line, a city inside a single building, extending 170km (over 100 miles). This distance has since been scaled back.
However, matches are still set to be played in Neom, where the stadium will be elevated 350m (over 1,000 feet) above ground level and only accessible via high-speed lifts and driverless vehicles.
Human-rights bodies feel that these ambitious plans put workers at even greater risk.
“The giga-projects often impose unrealistic, tight deadlines for projects, which translates to additional pressure on workers,” said Human Rights Watch in their latest report. “Many workers are also isolated from support networks such as embassies or well-established migrant diaspora groups.
“One Neom-based worker said, ‘We are in the middle of nowhere. Embassies are very far away. If something goes wrong, there is nowhere we can go. There is also fear. Where do we go? Who do we tell?’.”
Will the fan experience feel different in Saudi?
In all likelihood, yes, but it is worth asking, “Different to what, exactly?”
The past two men’s World Cups have been in Russia and Qatar, nations whose human-rights laws do not meet international standards, with significant restrictions on protest, workers and the LGBTQ+ community. Football Supporters Europe (FSE) was one of the 11 organisations that expressed their concern at Saudi Arabia’s human-rights assessment.
This will be different from a traditional World Cup, but that notion has been changing for quite some time. In practice, Saudi’s tournament will likely feel similar to the one in Qatar — its Gulf neighbour, which has similar laws.
Saudi’s far greater size means that some factors that affected Qatar will not be an issue. For example, being over 10 times bigger, it has far more accommodation capacity, with Qatari organisers needing to rely on private rentals to supplement the limited supply of hotel rooms there.
While, in Qatar, all the World Cup stadiums were accessible by the same metro system, FIFA acknowledges that most fans will travel between cities in Saudi by plane, aside from the eight grounds in Riyadh.
One of the major questions regarding Saudi Arabia 2034 for supporters will surround alcoholic drinks.
In Qatar, just two days before the World Cup began, FIFA confirmed that no alcohol would be sold at any of the stadiums, despite U.S. beer giant Budweiser’s status as a leading tournament sponsor.
Under current Saudi laws, individuals can be punished for consuming or merely possessing alcohol with sentences which include fines, jail time, public flogging and deportation for unauthorised foreigners. However, there are signs this policy may be slowly liberalising as the government tries to attract more foreign tourism. In January, Saudi officials announced a shop would open in Riyadh selling alcohol to diplomatic staff, the first such store in 70 years — though there are limitations on quantity, while only non-Muslims will be allowed to register.
One thing organisers do have is time — it is expected that further discussions will take place over supporters being able to enjoy a beer at the Saudi-hosted World Cup in the decade or so before the tournament kicks off.
(Top photo: Dan Goldfarb for The Athletic, photos: Getty Images)
