European leagues set to oppose any attempt to stage Saudi World Cup in winter

The Premier League and other European top divisions are likely to oppose any attempt to stage a Saudi World Cup in the winter.

The Middle East nation is set to be rubberstamped as hosts of the 2034 finals at an online FIFA Congress on Wednesday, potentially through a vote by acclamation.

Opposition from national associations is set to be symbolic at best, but a tougher challenge may lie ahead for FIFA and Saudi Arabia in getting domestic leagues onside.

European Leagues, which includes the Premier League among its membership, is already involved in a legal row with FIFA over what it sees as a lack of consultation over the international calendar, and the PA news agency understands there are huge concerns among leagues over the fixture chaos a winter World Cup in 2034 would cause.

PA Media

Scheduling a World Cup mid-season would also likely have a knock-on effect to the seasons either side of the campaign interrupted by the finals.

Domestic leagues did pause for the 2022 finals in Qatar, but doing so again would be much more challenging given the expansion of European club competition that has occurred since, and the World Cup’s growth into a 48-team tournament.

For the 2026 finals, players are set to be with their country for up to eight weeks, from the start of the mandatory release period on May 25 up to the final on July 19.

FIFA’s bid evaluation report notes temperatures in Saudi Arabia are at their mildest between October and April, with daytime temperatures in June and July – when the World Cup is traditionally played – exceeding 40 degrees Celsius.

Meanwhile, the Norwegian football federation has criticised FIFA’s “flawed” process which looks set to hand the 2034 finals to Saudi Arabia.

The NFF says it will vote against any effort to award the 2030 and 2034 finals by acclamation on Wednesday, with both the Saudi bid and the joint Spain-Portugal-Morocco bid for 2030 standing uncontested.

The Nordic federation has lodged its formal criticism of the process in a letter to FIFA, and wants that criticism to be officially recorded in the Congress minutes.

None of the British football associations have issued any comment to date on either the process or specifically Saudi Arabia’s suitability to host the finals, despite warnings from human rights campaigners that migrant workers will die without major reforms.

Norway has gone public with its concerns though, and the federation said in a statement it “cannot endorse a process it considers flawed and inconsistent with the principles of FIFA’s own reforms”.

PA Media

“Tomorrow’s vote is not about who gets the 2030 and 2034 World Cups – that has already been decided,” NFF president Lise Klaveness said.

“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. By abstaining from acclamation, we are sending a deliberate signal that we cannot support FIFA’s approach.”

Even if national associations are given the chance to vote in the usual way, FIFA has combined the decisions on 2030 and 2034 into a single vote – leaving no room for associations to support one and oppose the other.

Saudi Arabia was effectively handed the finals by an agreement reached at a FIFA Council meeting on October 4 last year.

Spain, Portugal and Morocco’s 2030 bid had initially been up against a rival South American bid, but an arrangement was made for South America to instead stage the opening three matches of the centenary 2030 finals with Spain, Portugal and Morocco hosting the rest.

That meant only countries from Asia or Oceania were eligible to host 2034 under FIFA’s rotation system, with FIFA confirming interested nations from those continents had less than a month to put themselves forward.

Saudi Arabia duly did – on the same day the new arrangement was publicised – with Australia announcing on October 31 it would not stand as a rival.

“The lack of predictability and open processes challenges trust in FIFA as the global custodian of football,” Klaveness added.

“FIFA’s own guidelines for human rights and due diligence have also not been adequately integrated into the process, increasing the risk of human rights violations.

“Based on the mandate from our General Assembly in 2021, we have consistently advocated for FIFA to strengthen itself as a rules-based and predictable steward of international football. We must remain consistent in this matter as well.”

Saudi Arabia’s bid was given the highest ever score by FIFA’s bid evaluation team and deemed only ‘medium risk’ on human rights. Amnesty International described FIFA’s report as “an astonishing whitewash”.

FIFA’s relationship with the kingdom deepened when a sponsorship deal with oil and energy company Aramco was sealed in April, worth a reported 100 million US dollars a year.

There have been reports Saudi Arabia could also make an investment into DAZN, the broadcaster which last week struck an exclusive global rights deal for FIFA’s Club World Cup next year, worth a reported one billion US dollars (£784million).

Follow STV News on WhatsApp

Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country