A report commissioned by FIFA has concluded football’s governing body “has a responsibility” to compensate workers who suffered during the hosting of the 2022 Qatar World Cup.

The long-awaited report from FIFA’s sub-committee on human rights and social responsibility — finally published on Friday at midnight Central European Time — says the governing body “took a number of steps to seek to meet its responsibility to respect human rights” as part of the delivery of the tournament two years ago.

However, FIFA failed to meet one of the report’s primary recommendations of using the Qatar Legacy Fund to remedy workers impacted by human rights abuses, instead announcing they would donate the money to several other programmes which will not directly compensate workers in Qatar.

FIFA insisted the study was not “a legal assessment of the obligation to remedy”.

The independent study, commissioned by the sub-committee and developed by the business and human rights advisory firm ‘Human Level’, notes that “a number of severe human rights impacts did ultimately occur in Qatar from 2010 through 2022” for a number of workers connected to the tournament.

This included “deaths, injuries and illnesses; wages not being paid for months on end; and significant debt faced by workers and their families reimbursing the fees they paid to obtain jobs in Qatar.”

While acknowledging that “the main responsibility to rectify such shortcomings lies with the direct employers of these workers as well as with the Qatari government” the sub-committee “endorses the view expressed in the Human Level Study that FIFA too has a responsibility to take additional measures to contribute to the provision of remedy to these workers.”

World Cup organizers have put the number of deaths directly linked to the delivery of the tournament at 40. Human rights groups have long estimated that thousands of workers died.

A FIFA spokesperson said: “All reports and recommendations were considered during a comprehensive review by the FIFA administration and relevant bodies. While all recommendations could not be met, practical and impactful elements were retained.

“It should be noted that the study did not specifically constitute a legal assessment of the obligation to remedy.”

The report recommends that FIFA should use its Qatar Legacy Fund to remedy workers impacted or, for those who died, their family members.

The sub-committee advises them to “act upon the intention, as indicated by FIFA in a press release of 19 November 2022, to dedicate the FIFA World Cup 2022 Legacy Fund in full or in part to further strengthen the competition’s legacy for migrant workers.”

However, two days before the report’s publication FIFA announced the $50million fund would instead be used on a series of social programmes globally in collaboration with Qatar and three organisations, the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Trade Organization (WTO) and UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency, instead.

A FIFA spokesperson said: “The creation of the FIFA World Cup 2022 Legacy Fund was unanimously endorsed by the FIFA Council following a proposal made by the FIFA governance, audit and compliance committee.

“A Workers’ Support and Insurance Fund was established in Qatar in 2018 and FIFA believes the new Legacy Fund, endorsed by recognised international agencies, is a pragmatic and transparent initiative that will encompass social programmes to help people most in need across the world.”

Following the award of the World Cup to Qatar, FIFA has added human rights as a consideration as part of its bidding process for tournaments.

On Friday FIFA’s evaluation report for Saudi Arabia’s 2034 World Cup bid declared the risk assessment for human rights to be “medium”.

A vote on the hosts for the tournament — where the Saudi bid has no rival — will take place at the FIFA Congress on December 11.

GO DEEPER

World Cup 2022 migrant worker diaries, one year on: Death, regret, joy and trying to return

(Anne-Christine Poujoulat/AFP via Getty Images)

FIFA, the world governing body for football, released on Friday night its evaluation report for Saudi Arabia’s bid to host the men’s World Cup in 2034, awarding the nation a higher score for bidding requirements than it granted the successful Canadian, American and Mexican joint bid for the 2026 edition, while declaring the risk assessment for human rights to be “medium”.

FIFA also claim in their report that there is “good potential” for the competition to act as a “catalyst” for reforms within Saudi Arabia, saying it will “contribute to positive human rights outcomes”. Amnesty International described FIFA’s observations as “an astonishing whitewash” of Saudi Arabia’s human rights record.

The bid report also declared the bid by oil-rich Saudi to have demonstrated a “good commitment to sustainability” while FIFA acknowledges that the Saudi bid presents an “elevated risk” in terms of timing due to the climate of the country.

FIFA, which ordinarily holds men’s World Cups in June and July, says the bidder did not stipulate a proposed window for the tournament but pledged to collaborate to “ensure the tournament’s success”, implying we may see a repeat of the 2022 edition in Qatar which was shifted to the winter months to allow for the safety of participants and supporters.

FIFA ranks its World Cup bids out of five and awarded the Saudi bid a score of 4.2, higher than the so-called United bid for 2026, which was rated 4.0. For the Women’s World Cup in 2027, Brazil’s successful bid was ranked 4.0, while the defeated joint bid of Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany was given a score of 3.7.

FIFA released its report in an email to media at 12.33am Central European Time on Saturday morning. Almost immediately, reports emerged in Middle Eastern English-speaking outlets such as the Saudi Gazette, declaring that the Saudi bid had received the highest ever score from FIFA when bidding for a World Cup.

The Saudi bid for the 2034 World Cup had already been considered a nigh-on inevitability because it was the only bidder for the tournament. This outcome developed after FIFA announced a mega-edition bid for the 2030 World Cup, which would be hosted across three continents (Africa, Europe and South America) and six countries (Morocco, Spain, Portugal, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay).

This ruled those three continents out of bidding for the following World Cup in 2034, while the joint U.S., Canada and Mexico event for 2026 ruled out a return to North America due to FIFA’s principle of confederation rotation.

This left the Saudis with a clear run in the absence of a rival from elsewhere in Asia or Oceania, subject to a vote of member nations at the FIFA Congress on December 11, which was widely seen as a formality.

FIFA’s report say their evaluation “consulted various sources, including the bidder’s human rights strategy, the mandated context assessment, as well as direct commitments from the host country and host cities, together with all contractual hosting documents, all of which notably contain provisions relating to respecting human rights in connection with the competition”.

However, The Athletic revealed last month how 11 organisations — including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, a Saudi Arabian diaspora organisation and human rights groups specialising in the Gulf region — raised major concerns about the credibility of a report for FIFA entitled “Independent Context Assessment Prepared for the Saudi Arabian Football Federation in relation to the FIFA World Cup 2034”.

The independent context assessment, produced by the Saudi arm of global law firm Clifford Chance, excluded a large number of internationally recognised human rights from its assessment, saying this was because “either Saudi Arabia has not ratified the relevant treaties or because the Saudi Football Federation did not recognise them as ‘applying’ to the assessment”.

This meant it avoided delving into matters many would consider pertinent to Saudi, notably relating to freedom of expression, association and assembly, as well as LGBTQI+ discrimination, the prohibition of trade unions, the right to freedom of religion and forced evictions.

The report said that the scope of its assessment was “determined by the Saudi Arabian Football Federation in agreement with FIFA”, suggesting that FIFA itself approved the omissions. Both the Saudi Football Association and FIFA did not respond when approached by The Athletic at the time.

In a press release by the rights groups, they claimed that “Saudi Arabia’s already dire human rights record has deteriorated under the de facto rule of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman” and cited a “soaring number of mass executions, torture, enforced disappearance, severe restrictions on free expression, repression of women’s rights under the male guardianship system, LGBTI+ discrimination, and the killing of hundreds of migrants at the Saudi Arabia-Yemen border”.

“As expected, FIFA’s evaluation of Saudi Arabia’s World Cup bid is an astonishing whitewash of the country’s atrocious human rights record,” added Steve Cockburn, Amnesty International’s head of labour rights and sport. “There are no meaningful commitments that will prevent workers from being exploited, residents from being evicted or activists from being arrested.

“By ignoring the clear evidence of severe human rights risks, FIFA is likely to bear much responsibility for the violations and abuses that will take place over the coming decade. Fundamental human rights reforms are urgently required in Saudi Arabia, or the 2034 World Cup will be inevitably tarnished by exploitation, discrimination and repression.”

The FIFA bid evaluation, published on Saturday morning, leans heavily on the Clifford Chance report. It does not make any references to the terms “LGBTQI+”, “sexuality” or “sexual orientation”, while the only mention of women’s rights within Saudi Arabia can be found with references to the growth of the women’s game and women’s participation in football within Saudi.

The bid evaluation says that Saudi “has made significant strides in developing interest and grassroots participation for women and girls, and at the elite level”.

A model of Jeddah Central Development at the Saudi 2034 World Cup exhibition in Riyadh (Fayez Nureldine/AFP via Getty Images)

The bid, which ranks by low, medium or high, also gives a medium level of risk to stadiums, transport and accommodation, as well as the previously explained “event timing”. Stadiums are awarded a 4.1 rating out of five, despite eight of the proposed 15 stadiums for the tournament being new-builds. FIFA said this presented a “slightly elevated” risk profile.

The bid evaluation says the Saudi bid submitted commitments from the government to “respect, protect and fulfil internationally recognised human rights in connection with the competition, including in the areas of safety and security, labour rights (in particular fundamental labour rights and those of migrant workers), rights of children, gender equality and non-discrimination, as well as freedom of expression (including press freedom)”.

FIFA says the Saudis have committed to “equitable wages”, as well as “decent working and living conditions for all individuals involved in the preparation and delivery of the FIFA World Cup, including through the establishment of a workers’ welfare system to monitor compliance with labour rights standards for tournament-related workers”.

They also say the Saudis will “engage with the International Labour Organisation (ILO) in relation to its commitment to upholding international labour standards in all activities associated with the competition.” The treatment and rights of migrant workers were among the biggest talking points before and during the 2022 World Cup, staged in neighbouring Qatar.

GO DEEPER

World Cup 2022 migrant worker diaries, one year on: Death, regret, joy and trying to return

FIFA simultaneously released its report for the sole bid for the 2030 World Cup, which will be held in Spain, Portugal, Morocco, Uruguay, Argentina and Paraguay. The 2030 bid, which does not have a rival, will also be voted on by the member nations on December 11. It also received a rating of 4.2 out of 5, with the only medium risk factors judged to be stadiums, accommodation, transport, and the legal framework of the tournament.

The “sustainable event management” and “environmental protection” of a competition held across three continents was judged to be a “low” risk.

The report says that the “environmental impact assessment and initial carbon footprint assessment by the bidder, together with the commitments, objectives and mitigation actions outlined, provide a good foundation for the development of effective strategies towards managing the negative impacts of the tournament on the planet and protecting the environment”.

(Top photo: Christopher Pike/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

If you log on to TexAgs.com, the popular Texas A&M fandom hub, and peruse the message boards, it won’t take long to find a mention of the Aggies’ most-hated rival: Texas.

On TexAgs’ premium board, where tens of thousands of paying subscribers congregate to discuss Aggies football, the longest message board thread with the most replies is entitled “Horn Meltdown Thread.” It’s 326 pages and as of Wednesday had more than 11,000 posts since the thread began in February. There’s been a Horn Meltdown Thread every year since 2014.

Type Orangebloods.com — a top destination for Longhorns fans since 2001 — into your web browser and mosey over to its subscription board. There’s a thread dedicated to discussing Texas A&M football news, where Longhorns rejoice whenever the Aggies stumble. The current one started in October 2022, is 871 pages and has more than 30,000 posts.

In the case of Texas and Texas A&M, their 13 years apart on the football field only fueled the hatred in their 118-year-old rivalry. Why? Because the rivalry lived online, through message boards and social media.

Now, with the Longhorns and Aggies set to meet Saturday night for the first time since 2011 — and with an SEC Championship Game berth at stake — the anticipation and intensity are at a fever pitch on Orangebloods, TexAgs and fans’ social media platforms of choice.

“The rivalry was just too big to go away,” said Robert Behrens, a Texas A&M graduate, managing editor of A&M fan website Good Bull Hunting and prolific poster of Aggies statistics. “People had to push their anger somewhere.”

Let’s start with one of the biggest reasons the rivalry simmered over the years in certain corners of the internet: proximity.

Texas and Texas A&M’s campuses are roughly 100 miles apart. They are the two largest universities in the state with the two biggest alumni bases. Their graduates share office space, fantasy football leagues and even dinner tables. The game might not have existed after Texas A&M left the Big 12 to join the SEC in 2012, but the trash talking never really stopped, online or off, in the decade-plus before Texas joined the Aggies in the SEC.

“You can’t expect there not to be Aggies and Longhorns in each other’s lives, every day, at Thanksgiving, in the families, in the workplace, friendships,” said Billy Liucci, the executive editor of TexAgs.com. “The game can go away, but there’s still Longhorns and Aggies who grew up liking each other or loving each other.”

But, Liucci said, “You’ve had two fan bases that, for 13 years, have been praying for the other one’s downfall.”

In 2019, Anwar Richardson, who covers Texas for Orangebloods, wrote a column advocating for the Aggies and Longhorns to resume their rivalry game. The reception from many of those who commented on the story was frosty.

“Like little kids, they picked up their ball and ran home. Screw them,” one poster said.

Said another: “No No No. Never Never Never. Drop it already, Texas should never play them again in any sport. They left, and talked s— on the way out.”

“There were 14 pages of commentary telling him, ‘You’re an idiot, stay in your lane, you don’t know what you’re talking about,’” said Geoff Ketchum, the publisher and owner of Orangebloods.

Recruiting has also kept things spicy between the Aggies and Longhorns. Although they haven’t competed on the field, the schools have gone head-to-head for dozens of recruits. The state of Texas is one of the most fertile recruiting grounds in the country, and Texas and Texas A&M usually pursue the state’s top prospects.

Message boards are prime real estate for rumors, especially in recruiting, where concrete information on the intentions of high school football stars can be elusive. Orangebloods and TexAgs are ground zero for keeping up with the comings and goings of Texas and Texas A&M recruiting, especially when the schools square off on the trail. And not just through message board rumors; both sites are fully staffed with reporters who cover the football teams and recruiting, dispersing real information to subscribers.

“That’s definitely kept the conversation going,” said Brandon Jones, president and CEO of TexAgs. “That’s where these small victories would take place: Who’s winning what recruits?”

The intensity of high-profile recruiting battles even once led to a public spat between Liucci and Ketchum. In January 2015, after longtime Texas A&M commit Kyler Murray visited Texas, the two got into a disagreement on what was then known as Twitter.

It started with Ketchum inviting Liucci onto his radio show (Liucci declined), then a debate on the chances that Murray would flip his commitment to Texas (he didn’t). Then it got personal, complete with name-calling, questions of professionalism and thinly veiled threats.

Liucci and Ketchum said they patched things up after that and get along fine. But it underscored how intense the rivalry could get online.

For those die-hards who aren’t paying a monthly fee to post or read content on Orangebloods ($9.99 a month) or TexAgs ($16.99), X has also been ripe for back-and-forth.

Kyle Umlang, a data analyst and podcast host, gained popularity in Texas social media circles for his #AggieFactThursday posts, which are random facts and statistics about Texas A&M’s futility or Texas’ superiority.

It’s been 30 years since Texas A&M had back-to-back 10-win seasons. #AggieFactThursday

— Kyle Umlang (@kyleumlang) November 21, 2024

10 Win Seasons | Since 2000

19 Oklahoma
11 Texas
1 Texas A&M#AggieFactThursday

— Kyle Umlang (@kyleumlang) October 10, 2024

Advertisement

Umlang authored multiple books in this vein. The first was titled “101 Aggie Facts: Things Every Longhorn Should Know.” Three volumes were published. In August, Umlang announced his latest book, “The 2024 Aggie Fact Almanac,” which boasts more than 400 of Umlang’s Aggies facts.

Behrens, who began writing for Good Bull Hunting in 2013, has also gotten into the social media statistical sword fight. On Jan. 1, nearly two months after Texas A&M fired Jimbo Fisher but minutes after Washington defeated Texas in the College Football Playoff semifinals, Behrens posted a thinking emoji with a graphic comparing Fisher’s first three years at A&M to Texas coach Steve Sarkisian’s first three years at Texas.

🤔 pic.twitter.com/NM1kCfgJR9

— Robert Behrens (@rcb05) January 2, 2024

“I’ll throw out a completely factual statement that obviously implies an opinion or where I’m trying to lead you, but if someone tries to call me on it, I can just say, ‘Well, what did I say that was wrong?’” Behrens said. “I’m not going to say that I’m always objective, because I have a rooting interest and a bias. But I try to do it from a place that everybody can appreciate.”

Posts from Aggies or Longhorns about the other, however genuine or disingenuous, usually stir up a reaction. Because — even when they haven’t played — the rivalry still matters to both sides.

“Each side will tell you, ‘Oh, we’re in their head rent-free,’” said Amanda Atwell, a 2016 Texas graduate and former sports anchor who often posts about the Longhorns on X. “And they’re both renting out spaces in each other’s heads. I think we can just admit that at this point.”

Liucci, Jones said, “likes to mix it up on social media with Texas fans.” Ketchum doesn’t shy away from it either.

“I jokingly call myself Texas A&M’s No. 1 historian,” Ketchum said. “I’ve seen it all. It’s a different perspective of their history, but for the last 30 years, I know all the names, I know all the coaches, I’ve seen where all the bodies are buried. So it makes this weekend a lot of fun because I’ve missed it.

“I’ve missed Aggies. I’ve missed the rivalry and just being in each other’s lives, literally every day. Life’s better when these two have something cooking against each other.”

Liucci had mixed feelings about the rivalry returning before Texas moved into the SEC, but once the Longhorns did, the return of the game couldn’t get here fast enough, he said. He will relish the chance to claim superiority if the Aggies win on Saturday, but he also knows what’s waiting for him on social media if they lose.

“You talk it, you better be able to back it up,” he said. “On Twitter, the receipts are there for everyone to have on both sides.

“Everybody just wants bragging rights.”

(Photo of Texas A&M’s Ben Malena in 2011: Darren Carroll / Getty Images)