FIFA’s recent decision to award the 2034 World Cup to Saudi Arabia, despite its stated human rights commitments, raises eyebrows. The Gulf Kingdom was the only bidder after Australia’s lack of support from the Asian Football Confederation left the field open. Advocates argue this World Cup could promote change, backed by voices like journalist Tracey Holmes, while notable figures congratulated the Saudi Arabian Football Association and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman on the historic win.
In stark contrast, human rights organizations have decried FIFA’s choice, with Human Rights Watch warning that the tournament is likely to be tainted by severe human rights abuses. FIFA maintains it can foster positive changes in host nations, having since 2017 emphasized human rights in its foundational principles by adopting the United Nations’ Ruggie Principles, recognizing the obligations of states and businesses toward human rights.
The effectiveness of FIFA’s influence over real change in nations like Saudi Arabia is debatable. Historical precedents show that major sports events rarely lead to enduring improvements in human rights, often overshadowed by the powerful control of authoritarian rulers. Qatar’s prior hosting of the World Cup, which saw little meaningful progress on human rights issues, exemplifies this troubling trend.
FIFA’s own assessments regarding the upcoming World Cup suggest a medium risk for human rights issues, claiming there is potential for positive impacts. However, this is tenuous, especially given the glaring absence of commitments in areas like freedom of the press and LGBTQIA+ rights, where Saudi laws starkly criminalize such identities and freedoms.
Labor rights concerns loom large as the Saudi Football Association’s assurance to improve labor conditions falls short on credibility. With the tournament necessitating extensive construction, the exploitation of countless migrant workers raises alarm bells, supported by harrowing reports of high mortality rates among these workers, particularly from Bangladesh.
The question remains: why continue to entrust hosting responsibilities to nations with questionable rights records? The reality is that FIFA can only award the World Cup to countries that bid. With fewer nations willing to shoulder the substantial hosting costs, Saudi Arabia’s financial backing and eagerness to host exemplify a strategy of ‘sportswashing’ to divert attention from its human rights violations.
FIFA awarded the 2034 World Cup to Saudi Arabia, the sole bidder, inspiring mixed reactions. Advocates see potential for positive change, while human rights groups warn of risks including severe violations. FIFA claims it can drive improvements in host nations, despite past evidence showing little lasting change occurs. The concerning labor rights situation for migrant workers exacerbates the issues surrounding this decision, highlighting the complex interplay of sports, politics, and human rights.
In summary, FIFA’s awarding of the 2034 World Cup to Saudi Arabia contradicts its own human rights policy and raises critical ethical concerns. While advocates hope for transformative impacts, historical evidence and current labor rights violations call into question the validity of such optimism. This situation outlines the persistent challenge of reconciling sports and human rights amid authoritarian powers where financial clout outweighs ethical governance.
The decision by FIFA to grant Saudi Arabia the 2034 World Cup is layered with complexities surrounding human rights issues, which have faced mounting scrutiny since FIFA established its human rights policy in 2017. Despite these principles, historical context suggests that authoritarian regimes often leverage such high-profile events to reinforce positive public images. This dynamic complicates the narrative of whether hosting mega-events can truly be a force for human rights improvements in the host nations.
Original Source: japantoday.com
