A 2034 Saudi Arabian World Cup endangers lives - and The FA could end up with blood on its hands

On Wednesday, Saudi Arabia was confirmed as the host nation of the 2034 World Cup. There was no vote – their right to host was approved by acclaim, with no opposition and with FIFA president Gianni Infantino instructing the assembled delegates on precisely how to applaud the decision into being. Raise your hands just so, clap at this speed. It might have been funny had it not been so grotesque.

It all recalled a scene from one of cinematic history’s less significant cultural milestones - Revenge of the Sith, when the Galactic Senate rapturously cheers the creation of the evil Galactic Empire, and Natalie Portman’s character Padmé, looking on aghast, says “so this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause.” Admittedly, the applause at the FIFA congress was polite and perhaps even a little embarrassed rather than thunderous, but the fact that it’s so easy to see a cackling, hairless Palpatine in Infantino should probably be concerning.

More seriously, we are now ten years away from another World Cup which will be hosted in a country in which there are routine accusations of serious human rights abuses, where LGBTQ+ life is criminalised, and where migrant workers may be forced to risk their lives to construct those shining new stadiums. Some of them will be named after members of the Saudi royal family, for whom this venture is a vanity project in the same vein as Infantino etching his own signature onto the trophy for the increasingly disastrous new Club World Cup. At least that tournament hasn’t caused any deaths as it limps into being.

It's hardly difficult to understand how we got here from FIFA’s side, but the lack of opposition is perplexing. Of the 211 member nations, only one refused to vote – the Norwegian FA stood alone in withholding the demanded applause, and the only other nation to register so much as a complaint was Switzerland, whose FA wrote a letter demanding appropriate human rights monitoring, but clapped along all the same.

Given the widespread condemnation of Saudi Arabia’s bid from many quarters, it’s remarkable that the world’s football associations appear to be so supine. FIFA and Infantino are, after all, only enabled to act as they do because the FAs permit it. They could refuse to play in the World Cup or break away from FIFA entirely. At the least, they could use their own power to apply pressure in appropriate areas. Instead, they play ball.

For some national associations, there are strong political motivations behind their acquiescence. Infantino has, for instance, spent a lot of money and political capital in Africa, promising lavish investment in the continent’s footballing infrastructure, additional World Cup places and visiting regularly. As such, most of the African FAs are more than happy to scratch his back as he vigorously scratches theirs with the resources and attention that they were historically denied.

For other FAs with less direct political connections to Infantino, the motivations are more obscure. Before Infantino repackaged different bids to force through a 2030 ‘Centenario’ World Cup along with the Saudi Arabian edition four years later, Argentina, Chile, Uruguay and Paraguay all made a joint bid to host the centenary edition of the tournament, which was first hosted in Uruguay in 1930. Instead, three of the South American countries were given one game each while Spain, Portugal and Morocco will share the rest.

One might expect the South American FAs to be less than enthusiastic about such a poor counter-offer, but they too have happily waved it all through, even Chile, who didn’t get anything whatsoever. Claudio Tapia, president of the Argentine FA, described the vote as a “historical day” in which South American football “reclaims the history of all World Cups”. A little bombastic for three games, one would think, especially when the most obvious reason to split the 2030 World Cup across three continents was not to honour the past but because it meant that no other nations from them could make a bid for 2034. That might have made Saudi Arabia’s coronation more awkward.

Then, of course, there is The FA itself. Since the turn of the century, there have been numerous campaigns to get a World Cup in England, all of which have been ignored. They are considering a bid for the Women’s World Cup in 2031, too, but given the way their efforts to bring football’s biggest tournament back to its homeland have been brushed aside, there should be few political or diplomatic reasons for The FA to support Infantino – and yet they too went along for the ride on Wednesday.

Apparently, The FA met a Saudi delegation prior to the ‘vote’ and were given assurances that “all fans would be safe and welcome in Saudi Arabia in 2034, including LGBTQ+ fans”. Similar assurances were provided by Qatar ahead of the 2022 World Cup, and that didn’t prevent fans from having rainbow flags and similar expressions of support for the LGBTQ+ community forcibly confiscated outside stadia.

In any case, although a deeply significant issue, the safety of LGBTQ+ supporters is not the only serious concern. Saudi Arabia is run by a brutally repressive regime who stand accused of the use of torture against its own citizens and of arresting, intimidating or even murdering political dissidents and journalists. Women’s rights and liberties are supressed. It’s also a country which, like Qatar, uses and allegedly abuses migrant workers. It’s estimated that 21,000 such workers have died in Saudi Arabia since 2016. As Amnesty International put it: “Migrant workers will face exploitation, and many will die.” No mention from The FA of any “assurances” on that front.

International politics may play a role too, of course – The FA is meant to be independent from the UK government, but it’s hard not to think that Saudi Arabia’s position as a key regional ally might not play some part in their support. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer visited Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman just this week, and the two countries have strong economic bonds. For instance, the Campaign Against the Arms Trade estimates that over £29bn of British weapons have been sold to Saudi Arabia since 2015, many of which have been used in the slaughter of civilians in their war in Yemen.

It would make a pleasant change if any FA other than Norway’s ever spoke out. Oppressive, brutal regimes should surely not be honoured with multinational sporting events, but censured. The World Cup should not be hosted in a country to which LGBTQ+ fans may be understandably frightened to travel. Nor should thousands of migrant workers be exploited and killed for the greater glory of FIFA, Qatar or Saudi Arabia. And yet all of this is accepted, enabled and applauded, often by FAs who are happy to provide lip-service support towards the affected communities.

The FA can make as many gestures of solidarity with the LGBTQ+ community as it likes, but if all it does is turn a blind eye when meaningful action at the highest level is an option, then it proves its all the rainbow laces and armbands to be no more than a sop offering. If LGBTQ+ fans are arrested or threatened in Saudi Arabia, The FA and 209 other associations share a part of the blame – and if a single migrant worker is killed, their blood will be on the hands that so politely applauded Saudi Arabia towards the 2034 World Cup on Wednesday.