The awarding of the 2034 World Cup to Saudi Arabia has sparked controversy and highlighted the complex relationship between sports, politics, and money. Initially, the author argued that criticism should be directed at sporting federations when these events are awarded, not after the fact. However, the current landscape has shifted. Media scrutiny is now intense when dictatorships bid for major sporting events, but this scrutiny seems to have little impact on the decisions made by governing bodies like FIFA. FIFA, under Gianni Infantino’s leadership, appears to openly favor oil-rich nations like Saudi Arabia, seemingly disregarding human rights concerns and prioritizing financial gains. The awarding of the World Cup feels like a transactional ”thank you” for the influx of money into the sport.
The blatant disregard for human rights and democratic principles is alarming. The knowledge of potential worker deaths during stadium construction and the lack of positive impact on democratic development in host countries are well-documented, yet FIFA appears unmoved. Furthermore, FIFA seems to have abandoned its own regulations established in 2015 after a corruption scandal, all to appease Saudi Arabia. The decision to award the 2034 World Cup to Saudi Arabia was seemingly predetermined, even before other countries had expressed interest in bidding. This raises questions about the transparency and fairness of the bidding process. The Swedish Football Association’s vote in favor of the Saudi bid reflects a broader acceptance of the Saudi regime, mirroring a global trend of decreasing emphasis on democratic values.
The Swedish government’s stance further underscores the intertwining of economic interests and political considerations. Sweden’s active economic engagement with Saudi Arabia, including significant trade and infrastructure projects, reveals a pragmatic approach that prioritizes economic benefits over human rights concerns. Ministerial visits to Saudi Arabia demonstrate the government’s commitment to maintaining strong economic ties, even amidst concerns about the country’s human rights record. This economic pragmatism appears to influence Sweden’s sporting decisions, as exemplified by the football association’s support for the Saudi World Cup bid. The parallel between government policy and the football association’s decision suggests a unified approach to Saudi Arabia, prioritizing economic and sporting opportunities over human rights and democratic values.
The Swedish government openly celebrates its strong economic relationship with Saudi Arabia, highlighting the country as Sweden’s largest export market in the Middle East and emphasizing the extensive involvement of Swedish businesses in various sectors, from consumer trade to infrastructure projects. The government’s website boasts about the growing collaborations in education and research between Swedish and Saudi institutions. This close economic relationship provides context for the Swedish Football Association’s decision to support the Saudi World Cup bid. Instead of acknowledging potential human rights concerns, the association echoed FIFA’s positive rhetoric about Saudi Arabia’s capacity to host a successful tournament.
This approach contrasts with the stance taken by Helle Thorning-Schmidt, Denmark’s former prime minister and a figure within the Danish Football Association (DBU). Thorning-Schmidt questions the appropriateness of using sporting events as platforms for human rights advocacy, suggesting that such issues should be addressed through diplomatic channels and trade policy. This perspective offers an alternative approach to engaging with nations like Saudi Arabia, separating sporting decisions from broader political and human rights concerns. While acknowledging the importance of human rights, this viewpoint suggests that using sporting events as leverage may not be the most effective strategy.
Even Norway, a nation often seen as a champion of human rights, abstained from the vote, choosing a more ambiguous stance. This abstention, while framed as a protest against FIFA’s process, does not represent a definitive rejection of the Saudi bid. It also raises doubts about Norway’s future actions. Would they truly boycott the World Cup in 2034 if their national team qualified? The actions of Sweden, Denmark, and Norway illustrate the complex considerations and often conflicting priorities involved in navigating the intersection of sports, politics, and human rights.
