Connect with us

Culture

FIFA report: Saudi 2034 World Cup bid has ‘medium’ human rights risk

Published

on

FIFA report: Saudi 2034 World Cup bid has ‘medium’ human rights risk

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.

Advertisement

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”.

Advertisement

Tennis stars Ons Jabeur (far left) and Aryna Sabalenka tour the Saudi 2034 bid exhibition in October (Katelyn Mulcahy/Getty Images for WTA)

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”.

Advertisement

“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.

Advertisement

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

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.

Advertisement

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)

Culture

Xia De-hong, 94, Dies; Persecuted in China, She Starred in Daughter’s Memoir

Published

on

Xia De-hong, 94, Dies; Persecuted in China, She Starred in Daughter’s Memoir

Xia De-hong, who survived persecution and torture as an official in Mao Zedong’s China and was later the central figure in her daughter’s best-selling 1991 memoir, “Wild Swans: Three Daughters of China,” died on April 15 in Chengdu, China. She was 94.

Ms. Xia’s death, in a hospital, was confirmed by her daughter Jung Chang.

Ms. Chang’s memoir, which was banned in China, was a groundbreaking, intimate account of the country’s turbulent 20th century and the iron grip of Mao’s Communist Party, told through the lives of three generations of women: herself, her mother and her grandmother. An epic of imprisonment, suffering and family loyalty, it sold over 15 million copies in 40 languages.

The story of Ms. Chang’s stoic mother holding the family together while battling on behalf of her husband, a functionary who was tortured and imprisoned during Mao’s regime, was the focus of “Wild Swans,” which emerged out of hours of recordings that Ms. Chang made when Ms. Xia visited her in London in 1988.

Ms. Xia was inspired as a teenager to become an ardent Communist revolutionary because of the mistreatment of women in the Republic of China, as well as the corruption of the Kuomintang nationalists in power. (Her own mother had been forced into concubinage at 15 by a powerful warlord.)

Advertisement

In 1947, in Ms. Xia’s home city of Jinzhou, the Communists were waging guerrilla war against the government. She joined the struggle by distributing pamphlets for Mao, rolling them up inside green peppers after they had been smuggled into the city in bundles of sorghum stalks.

Captured by the Kuomintang, she was forced to listen to “the screams of people being tortured in the rooms nearby,” her daughter later wrote. But that only stiffened her resolve.

She married Chang Shou-yu, an up-and-coming Communist civil servant and acolyte of Mao, in 1949.

It was then that disillusionment began to set in, according to her daughter. The newlyweds were ordered to travel a thousand miles to Sichuan, her husband’s home province. Because of Mr. Chang’s rank, he was allowed to ride in a jeep, but she had to walk, even though she was pregnant, and suffered a miscarriage as a result.

“She was vomiting all the time,” her daughter wrote. “Could he not let her travel in his jeep occasionally? He said he could not, because it would be taken as favoritism since my mother was not entitled to the car.”

Advertisement

That was the first of many times that her husband would insist she bow to the rigid dictates of the party, despite the immense suffering it caused.

When she was a party official in the mid-1950s, Ms. Xia was investigated for her “bourgeois” background and imprisoned for months. She received little support from Mr. Chang.

“As my mother was leaving for detention,” Ms. Chang wrote, “my father advised her: ‘Be completely honest with the party, and have complete trust in it. It will give you the right verdict.’ A wave of aversion swept over her.”

Upon her release in 1957, she told her husband, “You are a good Communist, but a rotten husband.” Mr. Chang could only nod in agreement.

He became one of the top officials in Sichuan, entitled to a life of privilege. But by the late 1960s, he had become outraged by the injustices of the Cultural Revolution, Mao’s blood-soaked purge, and was determined to register a formal complaint.

Advertisement

Ms. Xia was in despair; she knew what became of families who spoke out. “Why do you want to be a moth that throws itself into the fire?” she asked.

Mr. Chang’s career was over, and both he and his wife were subjected to physical abuse and imprisoned. Ms. Xia’s position was lower profile; she was in charge of resolving personal problems, such as housing, transfers and pensions, for people in her district. But that did not save her from brutal treatment.

Ms. Xia was made to kneel on broken glass; paraded through the streets of Chengdu wearing a dunce’s cap and a heavy placard with her name crossed out; and forced to bow to jeering crowds.

Still, she resisted pressure from the party to denounce her husband. And unlike many other women in her position, she refused to divorce him.

Twice she journeyed to Beijing to seek his release, the second time securing a meeting with the prime minister, Zhou Enlai, who was considered a moderate. Ms. Xia was “one of the very few spouses of victims who had the courage to go and appeal in Peking,” her daughter wrote in “Wild Swans.”

Advertisement

But Ms. Xia and her husband never criticized the Cultural Revolution in front of their children, checked by the party’s absolute power and the fear it inspired.

“My parents never said anything to me or my siblings,” Ms. Chang wrote. “The restraints which had kept them silent about politics before still prevented them from opening their minds to us.”

She was held at Xichiang prison camp from 1969 to 1971 as a “class enemy,” made to do heavy labor and endure denunciation meetings.

The camp, though less harsh than her husband’s, was a bitter experience. “She reflected with remorse on the pointlessness of her devotion,” her daughter wrote. “She found she missed her children with a pain which was almost unbearable.”

Xia De-hong was born on May 4, 1931, in Yixian, the daughter of Yang Yu-fang and Gen. Xue Zhi-heng, the inspector general of the metropolitan police in the nationalist government.

Advertisement

When she was an infant, her mother fled the house of the general, who was dying, and returned to her parents, eventually marrying a rich Manchurian doctor, Xia Rui-tang.

Ms. Xia grew up in Jinzhou, Manchuria, where she attended school before joining the Communist underground.

In the 1950s, when she began to have doubts about the Communist Party, she considered abandoning it and pursuing her dream of studying medicine, her daughter said. But the idea terrified her husband, Ms. Chang said in an interview, because it would have meant disavowing the Communists.

By the late 1950s, during the Mao-induced Great Famine that killed tens of millions, both of her parents had become “totally disillusioned,” Ms. Chang said, and “could no longer find excuses to forgive their party.”

Mr. Chang died in 1975, broken by years of imprisonment and ill treatment. Ms. Xia retired from her government service, as deputy head of the People’s Congress of the Eastern District of Chengdu, in 1983.

Advertisement

Besides Ms. Chang, Ms. Xia is survived by another daughter, Xiao-hong Chang; three sons, Jin-ming, Xiao-hei and Xiao-fang; and two grandchildren.

Jung Chang saw her mother for the last time in 2018. Ms. Chang’s criticism of the regime, in her memoir and a subsequent biography, made returning to China unthinkable. She told the BBC in a recent interview that she never knew whether her mother had read “Wild Swans.”

But the advice her mother gave her and her brother Xiao-hei, a journalist who also lives in London, was firm: “She only wanted us to write truthfully, and accurately.”

Continue Reading

Culture

Why Is Everyone Obsessed With Bogs?

Published

on

Why Is Everyone Obsessed With Bogs?

In prehistoric northern Europe, peatlands — areas of waterlogged soil rich with decaying plant matter — were considered spiritual sites. Since then, swords, jewelry and even human bodies have been found fossilized in their sludgy depths. More recently, however, many of these bogs have been depleted by overharvesting, neglect and development. But as awareness of their important role in removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere grows, more wetlands are being restored, while also serving as unlikely creative inspiration. Here’s how bogs are showing up in the culture.

At fall 2026 Paris Fashion Week, several houses — including Louis Vuitton (above left) and Hermès — staged shows amid mossy sets featuring spongy green structures and mounds of vegetation. And the Danish fashion brand Solitude Studios is distressing its eerie, grungy looks (above right) by submerging them in a local peat bog.

For her exhibition at California’s San José Museum of Art, on view through October, the Chalon Nation artist Christine Howard Sandoval is presenting sculptures, drawings and plant-dyed works (above) exploring how the state’s wetlands were once sites of Indigenous resistance and community. This month, at Storm King Art Center in New York’s Hudson Valley, the conceptual artist Anicka Yi will unveil an outdoor installation featuring six-foot-tall transparent columns holding algae-rich ecosystems cultivated from nearby pond water and soil.

The Bog Bothy (above), a mobile design project by the Dublin-based architecture practice 12th Field in collaboration with the Irish Architecture Foundation, was inspired by the makeshift huts once used by peat cutters who harvested the material for fuel. After debuting in the Irish Midlands last year, it’ll tour the region again this summer. In Edinburgh, the designer Oisín Gallagher is making doorstops from subfossilized bog-oak scraps carbon-dated to 3300 B.C.

At La Grenouillère on France’s north coast, the chef Alexandre Gauthier reflects the restaurant’s reedy, frog-filled river valley landscape with dishes like a “marsh bubble” of herbs encased in hardened sugar. This spring, Aponiente — the chef Ángel León’s restaurant inside a 19th-century tidal mill on Spain’s Bay of Cádiz — added an outdoor dining area on a pier above the neighboring marshland, serving local sea grasses and salt marsh flowers alongside seafood (above) from the estuary.

Advertisement
Credit…Penguin Random House

The Irish British writer Maggie O’Farrell’s forthcoming novel, “Land,” about an Irish cartographer and his son surveying the island in 1865 after the Great Famine, depicts haunting encounters with the verdant landscape, including its plentiful oozing bogs.

Continue Reading

Culture

Book Review: ‘Selling Opportunity,’ by Mary Lisa Gavenas

Published

on

Book Review: ‘Selling Opportunity,’ by Mary Lisa Gavenas

SELLING OPPORTUNITY: The Story of Mary Kay, by Mary Lisa Gavenas


Mary Kay, the cosmetics company whose multilevel marketing included sales parties and whose biggest earners were awarded pink Cadillacs, was really in the business of selling second chances. Or, at least, that’s what Mary Lisa Gavenas argues in “Selling Opportunity,” a dual biography of the brand and the woman behind it.

Mary Kathlyn Wagner, who would become Mary Kay Ash, “the most famous saleswoman in the world” and “maybe the most famous ever,” in Gavenas’s extravagant words, was born in 1918 to a poor family and raised mostly in Houston. Although a good student, she eloped at 16 with a slightly older boy. The young couple had two babies in quick succession.

Mary Kay’s creation was a combination of timing and good luck. Door-to-door sales was a thriving industry — but, traditionally, a man’s world: Lugging heavy samples was not considered feminine, and entering the homes of strangers, unsafe. But things began to change during the Great Depression, Gavenas suggests, thanks to a convergence of factors — financial pressures and the rise of the aspirational prosperity gospel espoused by Dale Carnegie’s self-help manuals.

At the same time, female-run beauty lines like Annie Turnbo Malone’s Poro and Madam C.J. Walker’s were finding great success in Black communities. And, coincidentally or otherwise, the California Perfume Company changed its name to Avon Products in 1939.

Advertisement

Ash began by selling books door to door, moving on to Stanley Home Products in the 1940s. She was talented, but direct sales was a rough gig. Every party to show off wares was supposed to beget two more bookings; these led to sales that resulted in new recruits. But there was no real security or stability: no salary, no medical benefits, no vacations. “Stop selling and you would end up right back where you started. Or worse,” the author writes.

Gavenas, a onetime beauty editor who wrote “Color Stories,” takes her time unspooling Mary Kay’s tale, with a great deal of evident research. We learn about direct sales, women’s rights and Texas history.

But, be warned: Readers must really enjoy both this woman and this world to take pleasure in “Selling Opportunity.” Mary Kay the person keeps marrying, getting divorced or widowed and working her way through various sales jobs (it’s hard to keep track of the myriad companies and last names). Gavenas seems to leave no detail out. Thus, the 1963 founding of the eponymous beauty company doesn’t come until almost 200 pages in.

Beauty by Mary Kay included a Cleansing Cream, a Magic Masque and a Nite Cream (which containined ammoniated mercury, later banned by the F.D.A.). The full line of products — which was how Mary Kay strongly encouraged customers to buy them — ran to a steep $175 in today’s money. (To fail to acquire the whole set, Ash said, was “like giving you my recipe for chocolate cake but leaving out an important ingredient.”)

Potential clients attended gatherings at acquaintances’ homes — no undignified doorbell-ringing here — where they received a mini facial, then an application of cosmetics like foundation, lip color and cream rouge — and a wig. The company made $198,514 in sales its first year.

Advertisement

Although Ash may have seemed a pioneer, in many ways Mary Kay was a traditionalist company, whose philosophy was “God first, family second, career third.” Saleswomen, official literature dictated, were working to provide themselves with treats rather than necessities so as not to threaten their breadwinner husbands.

And yet, they were also encouraged to sell sell sell. Golden Goblet pendants were awarded for major orders. After the company started using custom pink Peterbilt trucks for shipping, it began commissioning those Cadillacs for top consultants. (Mary Kay preferred gifts to cash bonuses, lest women save the money to spend on practical things rather than the licensed frivolities.) The Cadillacs, always driven on company leases, would become industry legend and part of American pop culture lore. “Never to be run-down, repainted or resold, the cars would double as shining pink advertisements for her selling opportunity,” Gavenas writes.

The woman herself was iconic, too. While Ash was a product of the Depression, she was also undeniably over-the-top. She wore white suits with leopard trim, lived in a custom Frank L. Meier house and brought her poodle to the office.

Mary Kay went public in 1968, making her the first woman to chair a company on the New York Stock Exchange. By the 1990s, the Mary Kay headquarters near Dallas was almost 600,000 square feet. They commissioned a hagiographic company biopic; there was a Mary Kay consultant Barbie; they were making $1 billion in wholesale. When she died, in 2001, Ash was worth $98 million.

And yet, Gavenas cites that at the company’s height, in 1992, sales reps made on average just $2,400 per year.

Advertisement

Instead of so much time in the pink fantasia of Mary Kay, it would have been nice for a few detours showing how infrequently the opportunities the company sold were truly realized.

SELLING OPPORTUNITY: The Story of Mary Kay | By Mary Lisa Gavenas | Viking | 435 pp. | $35

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending