In a renewed effort to demand accountability and uphold human rights in Saudi Arabia, Alkarama has submitted on 23 July 2025 a new communication to both UN Special Procedures and FIFA concerning the attribution of the 2034 FIFA World Cup to the Kingdom.
This documents reports in detail the serious legal and procedural flaws that have undermined the integrity of the bidding process and enabled Saudi Arabia to secure the 2034 FIFA World Cup despite longstanding and credible human rights concerns raised by civil society actors and international experts alike. This new communication builds on two prior submissions made to the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights (WGBH) and other Special Procedures in October and December 2024, shortly after FIFA’s confirmation of Saudi Arabia as the sole host through an expedited and non-transparent vote held on 11 December 2024.
For the first time, the communication has also been submitted directly to FIFA through its Human Rights Grievance Mechanism as a pivotal test of FIFA’s commitment to human rights accountability and its willingness to address well-documented risks associated with the 2034 World Cup bid.
- Legal and Procedural Flaws in the Attribution of the 2034 World Cup Bid
The confirmation of Saudi Arabia as the host for the 2034 FIFA World Cup followed an unusually accelerated and opaque bidding process that deviated from prior practice and expectations of transparency. In October 2023, FIFA announced an expedited timeline and bundled the 2030 and 2034 bids into a single decision-making process. Thus, Member associations were effectively stripped of any meaningful opportunity to deliberate on the merits and risks of each bid separately.
Saudi Arabia became the sole candidate for the 2034 tournament within days of the bid announcement, after other potential contenders either withdrew or were disqualified by geographic constraints. FIFA then conducted the vote by acclamation during a virtual session, without opening the floor to prior debate or presenting a full human rights assessment to member associations. This closed and predetermined approach lacked procedural safeguards, and meaningful stakeholder engagement, ultimately affecting the adherence to FIFA's own commitments to human rights due diligence.
Of further concern is the role played by the law firm AS&H Clifford Chance, which was commissioned by Saudi authorities to conduct a human rights context assessment in support of the bid. Multiple NGOs and independent experts have since denounced this assessment as biased and lacking independence, describing it as a whitewashing of documented abuses. The assessment’s limitations include its narrow scope—excluding critical issues such as freedom of expression, the repression of human rights defenders, and the misuse of anti-terror legislation—and its reliance on exclusively state-controlled sources. Further compromising its objectivity, the firm failed to engage with independent civil society, trade unions, or affected communities, and completed its assessment within an unreasonably short six-week timeframe. Rather than facilitating genuine scrutiny, the report has served as a veneer of legitimacy for FIFA’s decision, despite obvious human rights risks and procedural flaws. FIFA’s endorsement of this report raises serious concerns about its due diligence obligations and institutional accountability.
Lastly, the voting process itself lacked transparency. Members were asked in December 2024, to approve the bids by acclamation, without debate or discussion, during a meeting conducted via videoconference. FIFA has failed to provide any clear rationale for combining the 2030 and 2034 votes, nor has it explained how this approach aligns with its obligations under international human rights standards.
- Human Rights Risks Associated with the Saudi Bid
Alkarama highlighted that human rights risks were to be understood in the context of Saudi Arabia’s continued use of vague anti-terrorism legislation to silence peaceful dissent—particularly targeting human’s rights defenders, minorities, and online activists— through a pattern of violations that include notably arbitrary detention, enforced disappearance, and torture.
For example, the Saudi bid includes large-scale projects such as NEOM, a futuristic megacity that has drawn global condemnation due to reports of forced evictions, judicial repression, and violence against members of the indigenous Howeitat tribe. These actions have been denounced by UN Special Procedures as clear violations of international human rights law.
Migrant workers also remain at severe risk. In March 2025, the first publicly reported migrant worker death linked to a 2034 World Cup construction site underscored the real-life consequences of awarding mega sporting events to countries that fail to meet international labour and human rights standards.
Taken together, these conditions reaffirm Saudi Arabia’s classification as a high-risk environment for human rights violations, raising the alarm that hosting the World Cup there may actively contribute to further abuses. Alkarama highlighted in its latest submission that since the initial October 2024 communication UN human rights mechanisms and civil society have continued to document systemic human rights violations in Saudi Arabia. These include:
Arbitrary detention and enforced disappearance, often targeting human rights defenders and other peaceful activists for merely expressing dissent online,
Torture and ill-treatment in detention, involving prolonged solitary confinement, incommunicado detention, and severe abuse by security forces as well as denial of medical care,
Retaliation against human rights defenders, prosecuted under vague anti-terrorism laws and denied fair trial guarantees,
And the continued use of the death penalty, including for acts that do not meet the threshold of “most serious crimes” under international law, notably in cases involving juveniles or protest-related charges.
- Violations of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs)
Alkarama’s report concludes that FIFA’s decision to award the 2034 World Cup to Saudi Arabia constitutes a direct breach of its own Human Rights Policy and its responsibilities under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), a global standard endorsed by the United Nations to guide businesses and organisations in preventing, addressing, and remedying human rights abuses linked to their operations. Specifically:
Principle 13 has been violated through FIFA’s failure to prevent or mitigate adverse human rights impacts it knew or should have known were linked to the Saudi bid, including risks to freedom of expression, assembly, and the rights of advocates, women, migrant workers and minorities.
Principles 17 and 18 were breached due to the absence of any credible human rights’ due diligence process, including a lack of transparent stakeholder consultation or meaningful risk assessment—despite prior warnings from UN bodies and civil society.
Principles 23 and 24 require heightened care in high-risk environments, yet FIFA proceeded without sufficient safeguards, oversight mechanisms, or binding commitments from Saudi Arabia, effectively ignoring the systemic and ongoing nature of human rights violations in the country.
4. Requests Submitted to UN Special Procedures and FIFA
In its conclusions and requests, Alkarama called on the UN Special Procedures—particularly the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights—to closely monitor FIFA’s handling of this communication. It urges them to assess whether FIFA is upholding its responsibilities under international human rights standards and the UNGPs.
In parallel, the association is requesting that FIFA take immediate and concrete steps to address the failures identified. Specifically, FIFA should cancel the confirmation of Saudi Arabia as the host of the 2034 World Cup and restart the bidding process with a reformed framework. This should include a truly independent and comprehensive human rights assessment covering labour rights, freedom of expression, and the protection of human rights defenders; the establishment of measurable and enforceable human rights benchmarks for host countries; and a requirement for Saudi Arabia to provide binding commitments to reform laws and practices that currently violate international standards.
Alkarama highlighted that FIFA must commission a new, truly independent and transparent human rights assessment that includes all relevant rights concerns—such as labour protections, freedom of expression, and safeguards for vulnerable groups—and that consults with independent civil society and affected communities.
Furthermore, FIFA must require Saudi Arabia to adopt enforceable commitments to fundamental freedoms, including reforming repressive laws, ratifying core international treaties, cooperating with UN mechanisms, and enabling the work of independent civil society and media. Finally, robust monitoring mechanisms must be implemented to ensure compliance throughout the process.
Conclusion and Call to Action
This new complaint marks the first time that Alkarama has submitted its concerns through FIFA’s Human Rights Grievance Mechanism. The association has also formally informed both UN Special Procedures and FIFA of this dual filing, emphasising that FIFA’s response—or lack thereof—will serve as a critical test of whether its grievance mechanism offers genuine access to remedy and institutional accountability.
In the same vein, Alkarama calls for more public accountability : civil society organisations, football fans, workers’ rights advocates, and other affected individuals are invited to submit complaints through FIFA’s grievance mechanism portal. As a publicly proclaimed tool for remedy, this mechanism must be tested and held accountable. Only through collective pressure can the normalisation of repression through global sporting events in countries such as Saudi Arabia be challenged and reversed.