Key events
My colleagues, Pete Pattison and Tom Levitt, have both written extensively and in great detail on the plight of migrant workers in Qatar, and the risks posed by a Saudi World Cup. Here is their latest piece:
Over the past months, a host of human rights groups have raised concerns about the alleged abuse of migrant workers and the risks of awarding the World Cup to Saudi Arabia, with Amnesty International saying, “migrant workers will face exploitation, and many will die”.
Nick McGeehan, co-director of FairSquare, writes about their report on Fifa from October. “Substitute: The case for the external reform of Fifa identifies the serious structural flaws that lead to it making obviously bonkers decisions like giving the World Cup to Saudi Arabia, and simultaneously preclude it from fulfilling its objectives of developing the game.”
And more on that report from Paul MacInnes:
Our first stop is Asuncion, the capital of Paraguay, where the various FA suits will lay out their plans to host matches at the 2030 World Cup. There’s the obligatory glossy video presentation, confirming venues in Montevideo, Buenos Aires and Asuncion.
The existing plan is for the tournament’s first three games to be played in South America, with the rest in Spain, Portugal and Morocco. Of course, hosting the entire centenary tournament in Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay would actually have been a good choice; it’s the way two separate World Cup scenarios have been jackknifed together into a carbon-heavy nightmare that’s the problem.
“It might have been worse,” writes Charles Antaki. “It could have been Musk City on Mars. Perhaps next time.” This reminds me of one of my favourite Sepp Blatter moments – sidestepping a mountain of corruption questions by talking up ‘inter-planetary competitions’ before the 2014 World Cup.
It was brief finance chat indeed, because we have moved swiftly on to the three eligible bids – Spain, Morocco and Portugal (2030); Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay (selected 2030 matches) and Saudi Arabia (2034). Each delegation will give a short presentation and then votes will be cast.
The Fifa president moves on to the 2030 men’s tournament. “What better way to celebrate 100 years of the World Cup, than having a World Cup in six countries, on three continents, with 48 teams?” he asks. By having fewer countries, continents and teams involved, I might venture.
On 2034, he adds: “It will be the first World Cup of the new century [of World Cups] and it will be a spectacular one definitely.” After some guff about inclusivity that I won’t bother repeating, it’s time for some brief finance chat.
Infantino talks about the success of the 32-team Women’s World Cup last year, and hints at future expansion. He also runs through the World Cup 2026 (“A hundred Super Bowls”) and the 2027 Women’s World Cup in Brazil, the first in South America.
Infantino: “Today we are here to decide on the hosts of 2030 and 2034. Two years ago, we were in Qatar to witness a fantastic, incredible, beautiful World Cup. Three million fans in the stands, five billion watching on TV. What an incredible success story that was.” He still finds ways to surprise me, I’ll give him that.
Now Infantino is giving his president’s address. “Football is a unique social phenomenon which is capable of bringing people from all over the world together, in a peaceful, joyful and respectful way. This is unity, and this is football.”
Norwegian and Swiss FAs raise concerns
Now, a letter from the Norwegian FA is being read out, “raising concerns about the bidding process … being perceived as not fully aligning with the principles and objectives of Fifa’s governance reforms of 2016.” Grafström says that Fifa will go back to the Norwegian FA to discuss their concerns after the Congress. The Swiss FA have also submitted a letter raising similar concerns; both will be included in the minutes.
Fifa’s congress has begun
Gianni Infantino is seated alongside the general secretary, Mattias Grafström, who confirms 201 nations are in virtual attendance, and that all 211 eligible nations have voted on the World Cup bids.
“I do not even know where to begin. But if I look back at the unbending arc of compromised integrity the writing, as they say, has been on the wall,” writes Krishna Moorthy.
“Putin, Qatar, Trump potentially handing out medals two years from now, a multi continent Jumboree six years down the line. The most logical next step in this travesty has to be Saudi Arabia. I will be 69 in 2034 and I do not plan to watch even a single minute.”
Here’s Nick Ames on what a Saudi World Cup might mean for the nation’s migrant workers. A recent ITV documentary, Kingdom Uncovered, reported that 21,000 workers from Nepal, India and Bangladesh have died since the launch of Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 programme in April 2016. Of the 15 planned venues for 2034, 11 are yet to be built – and one is in Neom, a city that is yet to be built.
The Council of Europe, a human rights watchdog whose mission is to “promote democracy, human rights and the rule of law across Europe and beyond”, have recently released two statements on Saudi Arabia’s World Cup bid. The first queries the “opaque process” Fifa have taken in awarding the 2034 tournament; the second calls on Gianni Infantino to ensure human rights are protected.
“As one of the world’s most influential sport organisations, Fifa has the power to foster positive change,” said Linda Hofstad Helleland. “Hosting a World Cup is more than an honour; it is a responsibility. It is therefore crucial that Fifa sets clear and enforceable rules for Saudi Arabia, as well as for any other host country.”
A reminder of the 2030 World Cup plan, set to be verified today. Why have one host when you can have six?
Today’s Extraordinary Fifa Congress begins at 2pm (GMT), 3pm local time in Zürich. The agenda can be seen here; the process of awarding the 2030 and 2034 World Cups will begin at around 2.25pm (GMT). Gianni Infantino is scheduled to speak after that – will we get another “today I feel disabled” style speech?
Here’s Barney Ronay’s excellent long read on Saudi Arabia and the human cost of building the 2034 World Cup.
Gianni Infantino has both executive control and full knowledge of the possible consequences. This isn’t a hijacking. It is instead a considered and managed process. Let us sponsor the building of your hardline leisure state. Let us take the rewards, nourish ourselves on suffering in plain sight, while pretending to an almost satirical degree that it is all for love of the game, that this one’s for the children.
At which point two things can be said. First, this will stand as surely the most wretched, bloody, damaging act in the history of global organised sport. If not causing death were your starting point, your one non-negotiable, Saudi Arabia wouldn’t even be on the table. And yet Infantino appears to have actively sought this outcome, aligning his Fifa with the world’s most ruthlessly ambitious carbon power; and as a consequence taking choices that will, it can be assumed, cause demonstrable death and suffering.
FA expected to support Saudi Arabia’s bid
Paul MacInnes
The Football Assocation is to expected to support both the Saudi bid for 2034 and the multi-country 2030 offer from Spain, Morocco and Portugal (as well as Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay). Their position has come under scrutiny ahead of the vote, with the FA not commenting publicly, but they look set to join the mass ‘acclamation’ for the bid when asked later today.
Norway are currently the sole nation to publicly express their decision to go against the vote. On Tuesday the president of the Norwegian Football Federation, Lise Klaveness, said: “Tomorrow’s vote is not about who gets the 2030 and 2034 World Cups – that has already been decided. The congress is primarily about providing feedback on Fifa’s allocation process.”
“The board’s assessment is that the process does not align with the principles of a sound and predictable governance system,” Klaveness continued. “By abstaining from acclamation, we are sending a deliberate signal that we cannot support Fifa’s approach.”
From Mussolini’s World Cup to Qatar, via Argentina’s military junta – the World Cup’s long relationship with what is now called “sportswashing”. While checking this gallery over, I stumbled upon a quite spectacular quote from Jérôme Valcke, then the Fifa general secretary, in 2013. “I will say something which is crazy – but less democracy is sometimes better for organising a World Cup.”
Preamble
The World Cup is heading to Saudi Arabia. This afternoon’s virtual Fifa congress in Zürich will officially confirm the 2034 hosts (and those of the multinational 2030 tournament), but this is a done deal. The speed at which a Saudi World Cup has developed from distant fear to total certainty has been breathtaking, and leaves plenty of difficult questions unanswered. For instance, was the decision to host the 2030 event across six countries on three continents – trumpeted as a tribute to the tournament’s centenary – actually a convenient excuse?
With Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay (Conmebol), Spain and Portugal (Uefa) and Morocco (Caf) all sharing hosting rights, it left Asia and Oceania as the only choices for 2034. Fifa then opened the bidding process without warning, and while Saudi Arabia had a glossy document ready to go – packed with dystopian visions of glowing extra-terrestrial arenas – other interested parties had 25 days to get their act together. Australia were the only realistic competition, but soon ran out of time.
Other hurdles were breezily overcome, including a Saudi FA-commissioned human rights assessment, labelled a “whitewash [of] the reality of abuse and discrimination faced by Saudi Arabia’s citizens and residents” by one campaign group, and condemned by Amnesty, Human Rights Watch and others. Then there was Fifa’s own report on the Saudi bid, awarding a historically high score of 419.8 out of 500. Both of these assessments failed to tackle the plight of migrant workers, a shadow on the Qatar World Cup that is at risk of being repeated.
Even the most wide-eyed, naive football fans can trace the World Cup’s awkward history as a propaganda tool back to 1934, a century before the Saudi jamboree. Today’s inevitable coronation feels like history repeating, but with the film reel running in ever murkier shades. Will the next 10 years bring much light, clarity or accountability? That feels less certain than ever before.
