Forced evictions, urban speculation, police brutality, torture, arbitrary imprisonment, discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation, systematic violation of human and labor rights are some of the characteristics that the countries chosen by FIFA to host World Cups seem to have in common. , at least, since 2010.
Another constant is the questionable voting processes to select the winners. On the one hand, Germany, South Africa, Russia and Qatar They were accused of bribing various members of FIFA to guarantee that they would organize their respective World Cups. The United States, for its part, found itself immersed in a controversy related to non-compliance with a FIFA rule based on the conflict of interest of some of the federations that had to cast their vote, in addition to a threat veiled by Donald Trump towards those who will not support his candidacy for 2026.
On December 11, the awarding of the venue for this tournament in 2030 to the joint candidacy of Spain, Portugal and Morocco was announced (with Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay hosting three group stage matches to commemorate the centenary of this event). , which was first celebrated in 1930 in Uruguay) and in 2034 for Saudi Arabia; a revelation without surprise given that they were the only applicants for their respective years. The question is: do these venues meet the implicit requirements that FIFA seems to take into account when choosing the winners?
Spain, Portugal, Morocco 2030
Initially presented by Spain and Portugal in 2021, the candidacy added Ukraine as a “symbolic gesture for peace.” However, in 2023 the latter withdrew, with the official argument that it might not be fit due to the war with Russia, although the fraud and money laundering allegations who put the president of the Ukrainian football federation in jail could also have had something to do with this decision. Morocco ended up replacing the Slavic country, which was described as “great news” by the Spanish Government. Great news, for whom?
According to a report published by Amnesty International Last June, “the human rights strategies presented for the 2030 tournament, prepared without consulting human rights organizations or fan representatives, do not make detailed commitments on the risks that will be addressed.”
And, according to this NGO, “the joint candidacy of Spain, Morocco and Portugal entails risks for human rights, mainly related to labor rights, discrimination, freedom of expression and assembly, police action, privacy and housing”, in addition to warning that this concession should be used “as a catalyst in the fight against racist, sexist and homophobic discrimination that has too often tarnished football in the three countries.”
On the other hand, a World Cup in six countries on three different continents does not seem like the most efficient, let alone the most sustainable, formula to organize it. Then, what could have led FIFA to make such a decision?
Saudi Arabia and FIFA: ‘quid pro quo’
In February 2023, FIFA announced that that year’s Club World Cup would take place in Saudi Arabia. A month later, Gianni Infantino, president of FIFA, reported that, after several conversations, Visit Saudi would not be a sponsor of the organization he presides. A decision forced by the threat of dozens of players from different teams to refuse to participate in the 2023 World Cup in Australia if this agreement were to come to fruition. Barely six months later, the Australian federation, Saudi Arabia’s only rival for the 2034 World Cup, decides not to be a candidate for the men’s tournament; They considered it unfeasible to try, since Infantino had accelerated the deadlines and they only had one month to present their proposal. The Saudi bid also did not seem to be very developed, since, of the 15 stadiums in which they promised the tournament would be played, eleven were not yet built and four needed renovations.
In April 2024, Infantino finally reached his sponsorship agreement with a Saudi company, the state oil company Aramco, until 2027. This led to more than 130 footballers, again, women, to sign a protest letter not only because this company “plays an important role in fueling the climate crisis,” but also because it is “98.5% owned by Saudi Arabia, which has a history of human rights violations against women and other minorities, including the LGTBIQA+ community.”
In response, in addition to a statement in which they boasted of investing that money in helping to develop football at all levels, including women’s, last month FIFA published the evaluation report for which it was awarded to Saudi Arabia a score of 4.2 out of 5, the highest to date. They did not explain what led to such a score despite the fact that the report itself considered the candidacy as having a medium risk for human rights or why it was considered a low risk for environmental protection. It could be influenced by the fact that the platform streaming of British origin DAZN was the only company that bid for the television rights to the 2025 Club World Cup (which will take place in the United States) for which it will pay 950 million euros to broadcast this competition for free globally. A sum that they could afford thanks to the investment of the Public Investment Fund, the Saudi sovereign fund.
After the award of the 2034 World Cup venue became official, 21 organizations published a joint declaration in which they denounced that “FIFA’s reckless decision to award the 2034 World Cup to Saudi Arabia without ensuring that adequate human rights protections are in place will put many lives in danger. Based on clear evidence available to date, FIFA knows that if fundamental reforms are not carried out in Saudi Arabia, workers will be exploited and even killed, and yet it has chosen to move forward without taking this into account. “The organization risks significant liability for the numerous human rights abuses that will be committed.”
FIFA, Israel, Qatar
Article 4 of the FIFA statutes establishes that “any discrimination against a country or a group of people” can be punished by this institution with “suspension or expulsion.” Based on this, last May the Palestinian Football Federation accused the State of Israel of “human rights violations” and the Israeli Football Federation (IFA) of “complicity”, for which it requested that said organization they would be sanctioned. FIFA was originally supposed to issue its resolution in July, but they postponed it and hired “independent experts” to advise them. The decision should have been made during a meeting that took place in Zurich at the beginning of October, although it was postponed again on the grounds that they had to be cautious about the implications of any determination. Both the Russian federation and clubs were suspended four days after the start of the war with Ukraine.
In November 2024, FIFA finally published the report it promised after the end of the World Cup in Qatar. Here it was determined that although FIFA took a series of measures for the Qatari authorities to improve the conditions of migrant workers, “a series of serious impacts on human rights occurred between 2010 and 2022” and that it is plausible to conclude that the FIFA contributed to some of them, so they “have the responsibility” to compensate them financially, although the largest share falls on the Government of Qatar. Two days before the publication of said report, FIFA had announced the creation of the Qatar 2022 World Cup Legacy Fund worth 50 million dollars, which would be used for international development projects. Several human rights organizations, unions, fan representative groups and players’ unions had requested that FIFA provide workers with at least $440 million (the equivalent of the prizes received by competing teams) in compensation.
When Infantino took over the presidency of FIFA, after FIFAGate, he promised that the election processes for the World Cup venues would be carried out with transparency and that his organization would become more democratic. After the scandal arising from the celebration of Qatar 2022, he promised that he would work to strengthen the human rights requirements that candidates must meet.
None of the venues chosen to host the 2030 and 2034 tournaments comply with FIFA’s bidding regulations, which the document itself defines as “legally binding”; It also does not appear to comply with article 4 of its statutes and has ignored its own report regarding its responsibility for the systematic violation of rights that took place before and during Qatar 2022. Although FIFA has had the opportunity to change the narrative, the facts indicate that it seems more interested in perpetuating it.
#World #Cups #FIFA #plays #rules
