The international football governing body, FIFA, held an extraordinary digital congress to formally confirm the hosts for the 2030 and 2034 World Cups. FIFA President Gianni Infantino, addressing representatives from 211 member associations via video conference, urged participants to clap with their hands raised near their heads for better visibility. The process, conducted via acclamation, saw the joint bid of Spain, Portugal, and Morocco (with three matches in Argentina, Uruguay, and Paraguay) awarded the 2030 tournament, while Saudi Arabia secured the hosting rights for 2034. This decision, met with criticism from some quarters who described the process as ”embarrassing,” sparked debate around FIFA’s transparency and adherence to its own reforms. Critics pointed to the lack of alternative bids and the pre-determined nature of the outcome, raising concerns about the legitimacy of the process.
The streamlined acclamation process, where members voiced their approval through visible applause rather than a formal vote, drew particular scrutiny. Reports emerged suggesting some members felt pressured to comply due to the demand for visible participation. This method bypassed FIFA’s own reforms implemented after the 2015 corruption scandal, which mandated open voting procedures for host selections. The unusual format of the digital congress, with some participants appearing from seemingly unconventional locations like cars and empty rooms, further fuelled the criticism surrounding the event. Norway, led by its Football Association President Lise Klaveness, formally objected to the process, highlighting concerns about a lack of transparency, predetermined outcomes, and the circumvention of established voting procedures. Their objections were read aloud during the congress by FIFA’s General Secretary, Mattias Grafström.
Norway’s dissent centered around several key issues. They argued that the host selection was essentially pre-decided when the bidding process commenced in October 2023, limiting the congress’s genuine decision-making authority. They also raised concerns about insufficient human rights risk assessments by bidding nations, deviating from FIFA’s own human rights policy. Furthermore, they criticized procedural changes, such as the simultaneous awarding of two tournaments, the digital format, the acclamation method, and a general lack of clarity about the congress proceedings, as measures that undermined transparency and predictability. Despite these concerns, Norway emphasized that their objections were directed at the process, not the chosen host nations, and would not hinder their cooperation with the selected countries.
Swedish Football Association (SvFF) President Fredrik Reinfeldt, while acknowledging concerns about the lack of competing bids, defended the acclamation process, citing the impracticality of holding an in-person vote with 211 member associations participating remotely. He argued that the digital format, while potentially limiting the technical capacity for a registered vote, offered a more sustainable alternative to global travel. Reinfeldt also confirmed that SvFF had pre-decided to support both bids, emphasizing the unanimous approval from the association’s board. While he personally opted to raise his hand rather than applaud as instructed by Infantino, Reinfeldt clarified this was not intended as a protest but simply as a confirmation of Sweden’s position. He defended his decision to adhere to the established process, stating he did not have the mandate to object to the voting procedure itself and emphasizing the widespread acceptance of the outcome, with no dissenting votes against either bid.
In contrast to Reinfeldt’s acceptance of the process, former UEFA General Secretary Lars-Christer Olsson voiced strong criticism, comparing the acclamation method to the era of former FIFA presidents Havelange and Blatter, known for their controversial leadership. While acknowledging that the outcome might have been the same regardless of the process, Olsson stressed the importance of upholding democratic principles and human rights standards, particularly given FIFA’s own emphasis on these values. He warned against circumventing established regulations, suggesting this could set a dangerous precedent for future decisions. Olsson advocated for greater collaboration among Nordic football associations on such issues and expressed his preference for aligning with Norway’s protest. He ultimately placed the responsibility for the flawed process on FIFA itself.
Beyond the internal debates within football’s governing bodies, individual voices also expressed discontent with FIFA’s decision-making process. Robin Cartier, founder of ”Climate Action Football Association” and member of ”Fossil Free Football”, travelled to Zurich to protest outside FIFA headquarters. His solo demonstration, carrying banners criticizing FIFA’s environmental and social impact, highlighted the growing concern over the organization’s practices. Cartier’s experience, being asked to move his protest and eventually remove his banners, underscored the challenges faced by those seeking to hold FIFA accountable. The varied reactions to FIFA’s extraordinary congress, from formal dissent to individual protests, highlight the ongoing debate surrounding transparency, human rights, and democratic processes within the world of football governance. The decision to award the 2030 and 2034 World Cups has not only determined future tournament locations but also ignited conversations about FIFA’s internal workings and the responsibility it bears towards its stakeholders and the global football community.
