FIFA has sparked widespread controversy with its evaluation report endorsing Saudi Arabia’s bid to host the 2034 World Cup. Critics, including Amnesty International, have labeled the assessment as an “astonishing whitewash,” accusing the governing body of ignoring glaring human rights violations and environmental concerns. The report, which awarded Saudi Arabia a record score, is being seen as paving the way for an uncontested approval of the bid at FIFA Congress on December 11, where Saudi Arabia remains the sole bidder.
Table of Contents
Record-High Scores Amid Widespread Criticism
Saudi Arabia’s evaluation by FIFA has raised eyebrows for awarding the bid a record score, despite unresolved issues that have marred its reputation. The assessment categorized the bid as medium risk on human rights and low risk in sustainability and environmental factors. This high rating clears a major hurdle for Saudi Arabia’s hosting rights but has also intensified criticism from watchdogs and human rights organizations.
Amnesty International has been particularly vocal, warning that without drastic reforms, the tournament’s preparations could lead to the exploitation and even deaths of migrant workers involved in the massive construction projects required.
“Unless huge human rights reforms are introduced, people will be exploited, evicted from their homes and even die as a result,” said Steve Cockburn, Amnesty’s head of labour rights and sport.
Human Rights Concerns Ignored
The criticism surrounding Saudi Arabia’s human rights record is not new, but FIFA’s perceived dismissal of these concerns has ignited fresh outrage. The country has long been under scrutiny for its criminalization of same-sex relationships, restrictions on freedom of expression, and systemic exploitation of migrant workers.
Despite these known issues, FIFA’s report described the bid as having the “potential” to catalyze positive reforms, albeit with significant time and effort required. Cockburn, however, argued that FIFA has abandoned its principles in favor of a preordained decision:
“Fifa’s evaluation of Saudi Arabia’s World Cup is an astonishing whitewash of the country’s atrocious human rights record. The sports body has decided to ignore the clear evidence of worker exploitation, legalised discrimination and severe repression, and press ahead with a predetermined decision.”
Environmental and Scheduling Challenges
In addition to human rights concerns, FIFA’s low-risk rating for environmental sustainability has drawn skepticism. Preparing Saudi Arabia to host the tournament will necessitate large-scale construction, which the report acknowledged would have a “material” environmental impact. Nevertheless, FIFA praised the bid’s proposals to mitigate these challenges, calling them a “good foundation” for addressing sustainability-related issues.
The timing of the tournament also remains unresolved. Saudi Arabia’s scorching summer temperatures, with daytime highs in Riyadh exceeding 40°C during June and July, have raised questions about whether the event would need to be shifted to winter, mirroring Qatar’s 2022 World Cup. Such a shift would require global domestic leagues to pause mid-season, a contentious move that has already sparked legal disputes over fixture congestion.
Broader Worker Rights Context
Coinciding with the Saudi Arabia evaluation, FIFA released a long-delayed report on the conditions faced by migrant workers during the construction of Qatar’s World Cup infrastructure in 2022. Published nearly a year after completion, the report found FIFA and the Qatari government had a “shared responsibility” for compensating laborers and the families of those who died during the preparation period.
However, this acknowledgment has done little to assuage critics. Earlier in the week, Amnesty International described FIFA’s decision to allocate a $50 million legacy fund for migrant workers as “shameful,” arguing that the funds fell far short of directly addressing the scale of exploitation and deaths linked to World Cup preparations.
Sponsorship Ties Raise Eyebrows
The controversy is further fueled by FIFA’s financial relationship with Saudi Arabia. Earlier this year, FIFA signed a lucrative four-year sponsorship agreement with Aramco, a Saudi state-owned oil giant. The deal, reportedly worth $400 million, has drawn criticism due to Aramco’s status as one of the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitters.
Environmental groups have raised concerns about FIFA’s commitment to sustainability, questioning how the organization reconciles its partnership with Aramco and its stated goals of reducing environmental impact.
Amnesty International’s Verdict
Amnesty International has not minced words in its criticism of FIFA’s handling of Saudi Arabia’s bid. Cockburn summarized the organization’s stance:
“At every stage of the process, Fifa has ensured that nothing would stand in the way of Saudi Arabia hosting the 2034 World Cup and it has effectively discarded its human rights policies to achieve this end.”
He emphasized that FIFA’s actions risk perpetuating cycles of exploitation, forced evictions, and deaths unless the organization enforces stringent reforms in the lead-up to the tournament.
FIFA’s Diminishing Credibility
The backlash over Saudi Arabia’s 2034 World Cup bid underscores growing skepticism about FIFA’s adherence to its stated values. While the governing body touts the tournament’s potential to drive positive change, critics argue that FIFA’s actions suggest otherwise.
From ignoring well-documented human rights abuses to downplaying environmental concerns, FIFA’s evaluation of Saudi Arabia appears to prioritize expedience over ethical governance. Unless the organization takes tangible steps to address these criticisms, its credibility as a champion of human rights and sustainability may face lasting damage.
Read More: NPL 2024: Your Complete Guide to the Nepal Premier League
FAQs
Why is FIFA being criticized?
FIFA is accused of ignoring human rights abuses and environmental concerns in Saudi Arabia.
What are the human rights concerns?
Exploitation of migrant workers, discrimination, and limited freedoms are key issues.
How was Saudi Arabia’s environmental impact rated?
It received a low-risk score, despite the need for extensive construction.
Why is the tournament timing controversial?
High summer temperatures may require another winter World Cup.
What is Amnesty International’s stance?
Amnesty called FIFA’s evaluation a “whitewash” of Saudi Arabia’s rights record.
