Ethics CasesSport

Cases · FIFA · 2023–2026

Saudi Arabia and the 2034 World Cup

In October 2023, FIFA decided that the 2030 World Cup would be held across Europe, Africa and South America, leaving only Asian and Oceanian members eligible for 2034. It gave interested countries 25 days to declare, and Saudi Arabia quickly emerged as the sole bidder. FIFA also lowered its requirement for existing large stadiums. Reporting by The New York Times described FIFA President Gianni Infantino's role in smoothing the path. Human rights groups criticized the bid's human rights assessment and warned about migrant workers, women, LGBTQ people and free expression. FIFA confirmed Saudi Arabia as host on December 11, 2024. Worker deaths on stadium projects have since been reported. The case raises questions about governance, human rights due diligence and the limits of reform through sport.

By Tanner Simkins, editor

Timeline

  1. FIFA awards 2030 to a six-country, three-continent bid and opens 2034 bidding to Asia and Oceania.
  2. FIFA lowers the required number of existing 40,000-seat stadiums from seven to four.
  3. Saudi Arabia is confirmed as the only bidder.
  4. Amnesty International calls on FIFA to halt the process.
  5. FIFA's congress confirms Saudi Arabia as host.
  6. The first reported worker death on a World Cup stadium project.

The ethical issues

  • Bidding process: fairness and transparency.
  • Human rights due diligence: assessing risks before awarding.
  • Migrant workers: the kafala system and safety.
  • Rights of women and LGBTQ people and freedom of expression.
  • Sportswashing: using events to shape national image.

Stakeholders

StakeholderInterests & obligations
Migrant workersSafety, pay and freedom to change jobs.
Saudi citizensRights and opportunities.
FIFARevenue, influence and credibility.
National federationsVoting and reputations.
Fans and playersSafety and freedom while attending.
Human rights organizationsAccountability.

The case

FIFA rotates the World Cup among confederations. On October 4, 2023, it announced that the 2030 tournament would be hosted by Spain, Portugal and Morocco, with three opening matches in Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay to mark the tournament’s centenary. That ruled out bids from Europe, Africa and South America for 2034, leaving only Asia and Oceania eligible.[1]

Background

Saudi Arabia had first looked at 2030. According to The New York Times, Infantino engaged in private diplomacy on Saudi Arabia’s behalf, exploring whether Greece would partner with it for that tournament. The Saudis then withdrew from the 2030 race.[1][3] The Times described FIFA’s next moves, the three-continent 2030 award and the 25-day window for 2034, as “curious.”[1][3]

Scheduling questions remain open. Qatar 2022 was moved to November and December because of the heat. Because the usual winter window would overlap with Ramadan, the 2034 tournament could shift to January 2035, and Infantino said he was open to rescheduling.[1] It would be the third World Cup in Asia, after 2002 and 2022, and the first since 2022 hosted by a single nation.[1]

The rules and governance

Norway’s Klaveness argued that despite reforms after the 2015 corruption scandal, little had been done to make sure hosts met risk and human rights assessments.[1] The bid’s human rights assessment was prepared by the law firm Clifford Chance.[1] UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk called on FIFA to keep human rights as the top priority.[1] The decision was made at an extraordinary congress that confirmed the 2030 and 2034 hosts together.[1]

National federations took different positions. England’s FA said it would back Saudi Arabia to avoid accusations of hypocrisy if it wanted England to take part. Denmark’s federation said it was optimistic that conditions would improve under Saudi Vision 2030. Switzerland’s federation backed the bid but called for independent human rights monitoring. Sweden’s support led to several resignations within its federation.[1] Germany’s coach and captain said they would not repeat the protest the German team made in 2022.[1]

A fast process

FIFA gave interested countries 25 days to declare their intent to bid for 2034, and Saudi Arabia quickly announced a bid.[1] FIFA also lowered the requirement for existing stadiums with at least 40,000 seats from seven to four.[1][4] On October 31, 2023, Saudi Arabia was confirmed as the only bidder.[1] The New York Times reported that Infantino had played a key role in smoothing the way, including private diplomacy on Saudi Arabia’s behalf.[1][3]

Human rights concerns

Human rights groups pointed to restrictions on free expression, the treatment of women and LGBTQ people, and the kafala system, which ties migrant workers to their employers.[1] A human rights assessment commissioned by the Saudi bid from a law firm was criticized by 11 rights organizations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.[1] On November 11, 2024, Amnesty called on FIFA to halt the process.[5] The president of Norway’s football federation, Lise Klaveness, said little had been done to ensure hosts met human rights requirements, and Norway’s federation abstained in the vote.[1]

Pressure before the vote

On November 21, 2024, the African regional organization of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC-Africa) filed a complaint with the United Nations about the treatment of African migrant workers in Saudi Arabia. On November 25, U.S. Senators Ron Wyden and Dick Durbin urged FIFA not to award the tournament, citing risks for workers, women, LGBTQ people and the press.[1]

FIFA’s evaluation

FIFA released its evaluation of the bid at the end of November 2024. The bid scored an average of 4.2 out of 5, or 419.8 out of 500.[7] That was higher than the 4.0 given to the 2026 bid from the United States, Canada and Mexico, whose stadiums were already built.[8] The bid proposed 15 stadiums in five host cities, one more than the minimum of 14. Eight were planned new builds, including the King Salman International Stadium for the opening match and final, and NEOM Stadium within THE LINE development. Three more were under construction for the 2027 AFC Asian Cup.[7] FIFA rated the overall stadium risk as medium, saying that “the overall scale of the stadium projects, as well as the novel designs and configurations proposed in some cases” created “an elevated risk profile.” The bid did not propose a tournament window. It pledged instead to work with FIFA to “determine the optimal timing for the competition.”[7]

On human rights, the report quoted the 2016 Ruggie report, which said evaluation “is not about peremptorily excluding countries based on their general human rights context.”[7] It acknowledged that implementing the bid’s Human Rights Strategy “could involve significant effort and time” and rated the risk as medium. It also said the “ten-year timeframe for implementation” gave “good potential for the tournament to serve as a catalyst” for reform.[7] The bid committed to labor rights, including those of migrant workers, to children’s rights, gender equality, non-discrimination and freedom of expression, “including press freedom.” It also committed to a workers’ welfare system for tournament workers.[7] FIFA wrote that the protection of those workers “would depend on the timely implementation (or otherwise) of a continued reform agenda.” It noted the bidder’s statement that the welfare system was already in place at stadiums under construction.[7] Amnesty International’s head of labor rights and sport called the evaluation “an astonishing whitewash of the country’s atrocious human rights record.” He said there were “no meaningful commitments that will prevent workers from being exploited, residents from being evicted or activists from being arrested.”[8]

The award

On December 11, 2024, an extraordinary FIFA congress confirmed Saudi Arabia as host.[1][2]

Aftermath

In January 2025, FIFA rejected a request to monitor migrant workers’ conditions.[6] In March 2025, the first reported migrant worker death on a World Cup project involved a fall from the Aramco Stadium under construction in Khobar. In May 2025, FairSquare and Human Rights Watch published a report on migrant worker deaths in Saudi Arabia.[1] In April 2026, the UN human rights office called on Saudi Arabia to end the kafala system.[1]

The core dilemma

FIFA argues that tournaments can bring engagement and reform. Critics say FIFA designed a process to deliver a predetermined outcome for a government with a poor human rights record, and that its leverage was greatest before the award. What should a governing body require before awarding its biggest event?

Competing values

  • Global reach vs. human rights: expanding the game against protecting people.
  • Engagement vs. legitimization: change through contact against reputational cover.
  • Process integrity vs. pragmatic outcomes: fair competition against a sole bidder.
  • Revenue vs. responsibility: commercial interest against due diligence.

Strongest arguments

For the award: Saudi Arabia has a large football following and has introduced some social reforms. Engagement may encourage further change, and Western countries also face human rights criticism.

Against: the process was not competitive, the human rights assessment was criticized as flawed, and FIFA gave up leverage it could have used to secure enforceable protections.

Applying the frameworks

Rights

A rights lens centers migrant workers, women, LGBTQ people and journalists whose rights may be at risk. It asks what FIFA’s own human rights policies require before, during and after an award, and whether monitoring and remedy are in place.

Utilitarian

A utilitarian lens weighs the claimed benefits of engagement, such as reform pressure, investment and the game’s growth, against the risks to workers and the costs to the credibility of FIFA’s process. It also asks whether the conditions attached are likely to produce real change.

Justice

A justice lens examines whether the bidding process was fair: a short window, rotation rules that left one bidder, and relaxed stadium requirements. It also asks who bears the costs of construction and who receives the benefits.

Walk it through: the Simple Decision Model

  1. Spot the issue. You are the president of a national federation deciding how to vote on the 2034 award. The stakeholders include migrant workers, your players and fans, sponsors, FIFA, human rights groups and the host. The codes in play are FIFA’s statutes, its human rights policy and your federation’s values.
  2. Gather facts. What does the bid’s human rights assessment cover, and what do independent groups say about it? What monitoring and remedy mechanisms has FIFA committed to?
  3. Test options. Options: (a) vote yes; (b) abstain and state your concerns; (c) vote yes but publicly condition support on independent monitoring. Weigh relationships within FIFA against your federation’s values.
  4. Check codes and law. Would your vote look defensible if workers died on World Cup projects? Can you explain it to your members?
  5. Decide and document. Record your reasons and any conditions you set.
  6. Communicate and follow up. Communicate your position publicly, press for independent monitoring and review it as preparations progress.

What’s settled and what’s contested

  • Settled: the timeline; the rule changes; the December 2024 award.
  • Contested: whether FIFA bent its rules for Saudi Arabia; whether hosting will improve conditions.

Why this case matters

The 2034 award will be a test of whether FIFA has learned from Qatar 2022. It shapes debates about governance and human rights across international sport.

Key terms

Sportswashing
Using sport, through events, teams or sponsorship, to improve the reputation of a state or company and distract from wrongdoing.
Institutional accountability
Structures that make a sport organization explain its decisions and face consequences: clear authority, transparency, appeals, independent oversight and enforcement.
Commercialization
The process of turning sport into a product and a business enterprise, with profit pressures that can compete with principle.
Due process
Fair procedures before a sanction: notice, a chance to respond, an impartial decision-maker and a right of appeal.

Definitions from the Ethics Cases glossary.

Discussion questions

  1. Was FIFA's process fair, given the timeline and eligibility rules? What would a fair process look like?
  2. Can hosting a World Cup improve human rights, as was argued for Qatar? What evidence would show it?
  3. What responsibility do national federations bear when they vote to award a tournament?
  4. Should FIFA require independent monitoring of migrant workers' conditions?
  5. How should players and fans respond to tournaments in countries with serious human rights concerns?

Sources

  1. 2034 FIFA World Cup — Wikipedia
  2. 2034 Fifa World Cup: Saudi Arabia confirmed as tournament hosts — BBC Sport
  3. Inside Man: How FIFA Guided the World Cup to Saudi Arabia — The New York Times
  4. Fifa's relaxed stadium rule clears path for Saudi Arabia to host 2034 World Cup — The Guardian
  5. FIFA must halt Saudi World Cup bid due to human rights issues, says Amnesty — Reuters
  6. Fifa rejects request for monitoring of migrant workers' conditions in Saudi Arabia — The Guardian
  7. FIFA World Cup 2034 Bid Evaluation Report — FIFA
  8. Fifa issues glowing Saudi 2034 World Cup report despite human rights fears — The Guardian