The official announcement that Saudi Arabia would host the 2024 Fifa men's World Cup came as a surprise to nobody. Hosting rights have been on the country's geopolitical agenda for many years, and football's international governing body was more than happy to oblige.
Authors
- Wasim Ahmed
Senior Lecturer in Marketing, University of Hull
- Ronnie Das
Associate Professor in Data Analytics, The University of Western Australia
- Simon Chadwick
Professor of AfroEurasian Sport, EM Lyon Business School
Both parties have come in for heavy criticism as a result.
A joint statement from 21 campaign groups, including Amnesty International, accused Fifa of making "empty human rights commitments". The apparent lack of a competitive bidding process was ridiculed, and concerns were raised about the the potential environmental impact.
So what was Fifa thinking?
After all the controversy over the 2022 tournament in Qatar (and Russia in 2018) has it simply doubled down on being impervious to global criticism? Or is it genuinely trying to perform a balancing act which fairly distributes the geopolitical and economic power of football?
Whatever the underlying reason, Fifa has become well practised at defending itself. It said that for the 2034 tournament, a "comprehensive consultation process" had taken place. Fifa president Gianni Infantino added that he expects Saudi Arabia to deliver "social improvements [and] positive human rights impacts" as "one of the responsibilities of hosting a World Cup".
And there is some evidence which actually backs up this stance. It has been suggested for example, that after the intense scrutiny around its hosting of the 2022 World Cup, Qatar's approach to human rights and the treatment of migrant workers improved .
It could also be argued that Fifa is opening up the sport to new regions, away from the traditional power bases of football. After all, since the 1930s, Europe has hosted 11 Word Cup tournaments, with five in Latin America. It took until 2002 for Asia to have a turn (in Japan and South Korea), while Africa did not have a host nation until 2010 (South Africa).
Fifa also likes to position itself as a promoter of global peace and international unity. The appointment of former Arsenal manager Arsene Wenger as chief of global football development was a positive move in this direction . Under his leadership, Fifa has established more consultation processes with fans and national confederations to shape the future of football. It still has a way to go though.
The world is watching
Fifa would probably argue that it is accountable and open. After all, it went to the trouble of publishing a bid evaluation report . This endorsed Saudi Arabia's bid for being "innovative" and "forward looking", showing strong financial and organisational capacity.
You can understand the "innovative" element. One of the planned stadiums situated on top of a cliff, promises to be a modern marvel. Another will be built 350m above the ground, at the heart of a newly built city .
The "forward looking" part may be a stretch for a country where the royal family remains omnipotent, the security services are powerful, and questioning the ruling elite is simply not tolerated.
Yet sport could also provide an opportunity for Saudi Arabia to change. In recent years, the country has lifted a ban on women drivers , opened up job opportunities , and appointed women to some of the top jobs in government . Women attend football matches, there has been a surge in popularity of female-only gyms, and the country's gay scene is becoming more visible.
All of this does not match Saudi Arabia to the standards many in the west are used to, but at least it's a start.
Fifa certainly appears to see it this way. Justifying the country's successful bid, it said: "This is about making decisions based on evidence of how effectively bidders intend to address human rights risks connected with a tournament. It is not about peremptorily excluding countries based on their general human rights context."
A league apart?
And it's perhaps worth noting that few potential host countries would get a completely clean bill of political or societal health. In 2018, when the US, Canada and Mexico were given joint hosting duties for the 2026 tournament, the first Trump presidency had banned travellers from some Muslim countries from entering the country and was sparking huge concerns over the treatment of migrant families at the Mexican border.
Similarly, Canada continues to grapple with its long-term mistreatment of the country's indigenous population.
In 2024 (so far) across the US and Mexico , there have been more than 45,000 deaths linked to gun violence. That includes dozens of politicians in Mexico, where 163 journalists have been killed since 2000 .
The US, Mexico and Canada are also among the biggest oil and gas producing nations in the world. The US has the second biggest carbon footprint of any country, which will be exacerbated by the 78 matches due to be played there during the 2026 tournament.
Few questioned the decision to award the three countries hosting rights. So perhaps the inconvenient truth for purists is that no nation is perfectly suited for this role.
Competing to host major events has become something of a geopolitical tournament in itself, where the prizes on offer include power, prestige and the chance to try and change global perceptions. At the same time, football continues to seek ways to satisfy its hunger for commercial development and revenue growth.
Amid all of this, the hope must be that the world's favourite sport manages to be a force for social good - wherever it is played.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
