For lack of rival candidates the final decision was a mere formality: on Wednesday, Fifa awarded the 2030 men’s football World Cup to Spain, Portugal and Morocco (with individual matches in South America) and the 2034 tournament to Saudi Arabia. The fact that the decision to award the 2034 World Cup to the Gulf state was already a given does little to quell indignation in Europe’s press.
Der Spiegel can only shake its head:
“A country that restricts freedom of the press and women’s rights, a country that executed 172 people last year, a country that criminalises homosexuality. This country is to host the biggest football event in the world. Madness. … The 2030 World Cup will be hosted by Uruguay, Paraguay, Argentina, Morocco, Spain and Portugal. Six countries on three continents, with the maximum distance between venues being around 10,000 kilometres. Madness. … There will be 104 games, compared to just 64 in Qatar in 2022. Madness. But that’s exactly what FIFA wants. So there is method to all this madness.”
“A country that restricts freedom of the press and women’s rights, a country that executed 172 people last year, a country that criminalises homosexuality. This country is to host the biggest football event in the world. Madness. … The 2030 World Cup will be hosted by Uruguay, Paraguay, Argentina, Morocco, Spain and Portugal. Six countries on three continents, with the maximum distance between venues being around 10,000 kilometres. Madness. … There will be 104 games, compared to just 64 in Qatar in 2022. Madness. But that’s exactly what FIFA wants. So there is method to all this madness.”
Fifa isn’t the only organisation at fault here, says Politiken:
“Fifa hopes that the World Cup will have a positive impact on the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia. This seems naive at best, and at worst it’s a rhetorical smokescreen for the real reason: the Saudis have money and power. At least [former prime minister and current official of the Danish Football Association DBU] Helle Thorning-Schmidt wasn’t hypocritical when she backed the decision in favour of Saudi Arabia, saying that the country is important for trade and geopolitics. … We know that Fifa’s talk about principles is just talk. But the fact that the DBU is so willing to take part in this charade is reprehensible. … It’s infinitely sad that such a beautiful game is controlled by organisations that use their power so wrongly.”
“Fifa hopes that the World Cup will have a positive impact on the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia. This seems naive at best, and at worst it’s a rhetorical smokescreen for the real reason: the Saudis have money and power. At least [former prime minister and current official of the Danish Football Association DBU] Helle Thorning-Schmidt wasn’t hypocritical when she backed the decision in favour of Saudi Arabia, saying that the country is important for trade and geopolitics. … We know that Fifa’s talk about principles is just talk. But the fact that the DBU is so willing to take part in this charade is reprehensible. … It’s infinitely sad that such a beautiful game is controlled by organisations that use their power so wrongly.”
The process by which the host was selected was not in any way democratic, The Spectator observes:
“In the event, it turned out to be the easiest of contests, with no opponent and no actual vote – and all courtesy of Fifa, the tournament organisers. The Saudis were declared victors by acclamation, a way of doing things that will be met with approval by a country with an absolute monarchy, no political parties and scant regard for basic rights. Fifa, and in particular its president Gianni Infantino, have delivered the greatest sporting prize on a plate to the Saudis, whose takeover of international sport is now complete.”
“In the event, it turned out to be the easiest of contests, with no opponent and no actual vote – and all courtesy of Fifa, the tournament organisers. The Saudis were declared victors by acclamation, a way of doing things that will be met with approval by a country with an absolute monarchy, no political parties and scant regard for basic rights. Fifa, and in particular its president Gianni Infantino, have delivered the greatest sporting prize on a plate to the Saudis, whose takeover of international sport is now complete.”
Tygodnik Powszechny has its suspicions as to why authoritarian states have been selected to host the World Cup several times in recent years:
“The structure of the tournament, in which the lion’s share of revenues goes to the world football federation, means that most democratic countries, where public opinion is aware of the profits and losses of such an event, are reluctant to get involved with football bosses. … The concept of ‘sportswashing’, which refers to the whitewashing of the image of companies or entire countries through investments in this area, is gaining ground. When we think of Saudi Arabia, we’re meant to picture Messi, Ronaldo and other players of their calibre, not the execution of the prince’s opponents or the persecution of sexual minorities.”
“The structure of the tournament, in which the lion’s share of revenues goes to the world football federation, means that most democratic countries, where public opinion is aware of the profits and losses of such an event, are reluctant to get involved with football bosses. … The concept of ‘sportswashing’, which refers to the whitewashing of the image of companies or entire countries through investments in this area, is gaining ground. When we think of Saudi Arabia, we’re meant to picture Messi, Ronaldo and other players of their calibre, not the execution of the prince’s opponents or the persecution of sexual minorities.”
Subscribe to our free press review and stay up to date.
Sign up to receive the press review as a free newsletter
