Published on 01.11.2023
The anticipation of Saudi Arabia hosting a World Cup has been a long-standing expectation, considering the country’s significant investment in sports in recent years.
Their impact on golf through the LIV Series, domination in hosting top boxing events, and influence on international football transfers have been clear indicators of their ambitions.
Nonetheless, despite their impressive sports initiatives, the idea of Saudi Arabia hosting a World Cup is likely to shock many. With near certainty of staging the tournament in 11 years, this event may generate even more controversy than Qatar’s hosting last year. Concerns include issues related to human rights, Fifa’s handling of the bidding process, calendar disruptions, and player welfare due to the anticipated scheduling of another winter World Cup to avoid extreme summer temperatures.
Moreover, with an expanded 48-team format, the potential for disruption and the demand for substantial infrastructure construction will intensify sustainability concerns. Critics may interpret this as a form of “sportswashing” – a soft power strategy – by the world’s largest oil exporter, a nation facing serious concerns regarding women’s rights violations, the criminalization of homosexuality, constraints on free speech, the use of the death penalty, the 2018 murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, and its involvement in the conflict in Yemen.
Saudi authorities argue that their bid aims to modernize the country, promote the sport, inspire the youth, enhance tourism, diversify the economy in preparation for a post-oil era, and serve as a unifying force. They highlight progress in women’s football and point to their successful hosting of various sporting events, the emergence of the Saudi Pro League, the acquisition of Newcastle United, and the upcoming Club World Cup and AFC Asian Cup.
However, while Saudi Arabia has a more extensive footballing heritage than Qatar, attendances at most Pro League clubs have decreased this season. The true motives of Saudi Arabia’s leaders will remain subject to debate.
Nevertheless, Saudi Arabia’s status as the sole bidder for the 2034 World Cup will intensify scrutiny of Fifa’s processes and decision-making. Some observers express concerns that this outcome was almost predetermined in a deal lacking transparency and accountability.
The process leading to this outcome includes Fifa’s unexpected announcement to expedite the bidding process for 2034, limiting host countries to Asia or Oceania and allowing only 26 days for declarations. This decision follows the joint hosting of the 2030 tournament by Europe, Africa, and South America, circumventing environmental concerns and disqualifying these continents from bidding for 2034 under Fifa’s rotation policy. This was rapidly followed by Saudi Arabia’s bid announcement, backed by the Asian Football Confederation.
Furthermore, Fifa relaxed its stadium construction rules, reducing the requirement for established venues from seven to four. The decision by Australia not to bid raises questions about whether they recognized the futility of competing against Saudi Arabia.
Fifa might argue that uncontested bids are less susceptible to the issues of past lengthy contests that involved potential vote-swapping, bribery, and corruption. However, the perceived facilitation of Saudi Arabia’s bid will leave many uneasy.
The World Leagues Forum expressed concerns in March over Fifa’s lack of consultation regarding the global football calendar, including the expansion of the 2026 men’s World Cup and the new Club World Cup versions.
