FIFA report: Saudi 2034 World Cup bid has ‘medium’ human rights risk

FIFA, the world governing body for football, released on Friday night its evaluation report for Saudi Arabia’s bid to host the men’s World Cup in 2034, awarding the nation a higher score for bidding requirements than it granted the successful Canadian, American and Mexican joint bid for the 2026 edition, while declaring the risk assessment for human rights to be “medium”.

FIFA also claim in their report that there is “good potential” for the competition to act as a “catalyst” for reforms within Saudi Arabia, saying it will “contribute to positive human rights outcomes”. Amnesty International described FIFA’s observations as “an astonishing whitewash” of Saudi Arabia’s human rights record.

The bid report also declared the bid by oil-rich Saudi to have demonstrated a “good commitment to sustainability” while FIFA acknowledges that the Saudi bid presents an “elevated risk” in terms of timing due to the climate of the country.

FIFA, which ordinarily holds men’s World Cups in June and July, says the bidder did not stipulate a proposed window for the tournament but pledged to collaborate to “ensure the tournament’s success”, implying we may see a repeat of the 2022 edition in Qatar which was shifted to the winter months to allow for the safety of participants and supporters.

FIFA ranks its World Cup bids out of five and awarded the Saudi bid a score of 4.2, higher than the so-called United bid for 2026, which was rated 4.0. For the Women’s World Cup in 2027, Brazil’s successful bid was ranked 4.0, while the defeated joint bid of Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany was given a score of 3.7.

FIFA released its report in an email to media at 12.33am Central European Time on Saturday morning. Almost immediately, reports emerged in Middle Eastern English-speaking outlets such as the Saudi Gazette, declaring that the Saudi bid had received the highest ever score from FIFA when bidding for a World Cup.

The Saudi bid for the 2034 World Cup had already been considered a nigh-on inevitability because it was the only bidder for the tournament. This outcome developed after FIFA announced a mega-edition bid for the 2030 World Cup, which would be hosted across three continents (Africa, Europe and South America) and six countries (Morocco, Spain, Portugal, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay).

This ruled those three continents out of bidding for the following World Cup in 2034, while the joint U.S., Canada and Mexico event for 2026 ruled out a return to North America due to FIFA’s principle of confederation rotation.

This left the Saudis with a clear run in the absence of a rival from elsewhere in Asia or Oceania, subject to a vote of member nations at the FIFA Congress on December 11, which was widely seen as a formality.

FIFA’s report say their evaluation “consulted various sources, including the bidder’s human rights strategy, the mandated context assessment, as well as direct commitments from the host country and host cities, together with all contractual hosting documents, all of which notably contain provisions relating to respecting human rights in connection with the competition”.

However, The Athletic revealed last month how 11 organisations — including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, a Saudi Arabian diaspora organisation and human rights groups specialising in the Gulf region — raised major concerns about the credibility of a report for FIFA entitled “Independent Context Assessment Prepared for the Saudi Arabian Football Federation in relation to the FIFA World Cup 2034”.

The independent context assessment, produced by the Saudi arm of global law firm Clifford Chance, excluded a large number of internationally recognised human rights from its assessment, saying this was because “either Saudi Arabia has not ratified the relevant treaties or because the Saudi Football Federation did not recognise them as ‘applying’ to the assessment”.

This meant it avoided delving into matters many would consider pertinent to Saudi, notably relating to freedom of expression, association and assembly, as well as LGBTQI+ discrimination, the prohibition of trade unions, the right to freedom of religion and forced evictions.

The report said that the scope of its assessment was “determined by the Saudi Arabian Football Federation in agreement with FIFA”, suggesting that FIFA itself approved the omissions. Both the Saudi Football Association and FIFA did not respond when approached by The Athletic at the time.

In a press release by the rights groups, they claimed that “Saudi Arabia’s already dire human rights record has deteriorated under the de facto rule of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman” and cited a “soaring number of mass executions, torture, enforced disappearance, severe restrictions on free expression, repression of women’s rights under the male guardianship system, LGBTI+ discrimination, and the killing of hundreds of migrants at the Saudi Arabia-Yemen border”.

“As expected, FIFA’s evaluation of Saudi Arabia’s World Cup bid is an astonishing whitewash of the country’s atrocious human rights record,” added 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.”

The FIFA bid evaluation, published on Saturday morning, leans heavily on the Clifford Chance report. It does not make any references to the terms “LGBTQI+”, “sexuality” or “sexual orientation”, while the only mention of women’s rights within Saudi Arabia can be found with references to the growth of the women’s game and women’s participation in football within Saudi.

The bid evaluation says that Saudi “has made significant strides in developing interest and grassroots participation for women and girls, and at the elite level”.

The bid, which ranks by low, medium or high, also gives a medium level of risk to stadiums, transport and accommodation, as well as the previously explained “event timing”. Stadiums are awarded a 4.1 rating out of five, despite eight of the proposed 15 stadiums for the tournament being new-builds. FIFA said this presented a “slightly elevated” risk profile.

The bid evaluation says the Saudi bid submitted commitments from the government to “respect, protect and fulfil internationally recognised human rights in connection with the competition, including in the areas of safety and security, labour rights (in particular fundamental labour rights and those of migrant workers), rights of children, gender equality and non-discrimination, as well as freedom of expression (including press freedom)”.

FIFA says 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 Saudis 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.” The treatment and rights of migrant workers were among the biggest talking points before and during the 2022 World Cup, staged in neighbouring Qatar.

GO DEEPER

World Cup 2022 migrant worker diaries, one year on: Death, regret, joy and trying to return

FIFA simultaneously released its report for the sole bid for the 2030 World Cup, which will be held in Spain, Portugal, Morocco, Uruguay, Argentina and Paraguay. The 2030 bid, which does not have a rival, will also be voted on by the member nations on December 11. It also received a rating of 4.2 out of 5, with the only medium risk factors judged to be stadiums, accommodation, transport, and the legal framework of the tournament.

The “sustainable event management” and “environmental protection” of a competition held across three continents was judged to be a “low” risk.

The report says that the “environmental impact assessment and initial carbon footprint assessment by the bidder, together with the commitments, objectives and mitigation actions outlined, provide a good foundation for the development of effective strategies towards managing the negative impacts of the tournament on the planet and protecting the environment”.

(Top photo: Christopher Pike/Bloomberg via Getty Images)