The Premier League and other top European divisions are expected to resist any attempts to host a Saudi World Cup in the winter. The Middle Eastern nation is poised to be confirmed as the 2034 finals' hosts at an online FIFA Congress on Wednesday, potentially through a vote by acclamation.
While opposition from national associations is likely to be merely symbolic, a more significant challenge may lie ahead for FIFA and Saudi Arabia in securing the support of domestic leagues. The European Leagues, which counts the Premier League among its members, is already embroiled in a legal dispute with FIFA over what it perceives as a lack of consultation regarding the international calendar.
The PA news agency understands that there are significant concerns among leagues about the potential disruption a winter World Cup in 2034 could cause to fixtures. Scheduling a World Cup mid-season could also have a ripple effect on the seasons surrounding the campaign interrupted by the finals.
Domestic leagues did pause for the 2022 finals in Qatar, but repeating this would be far more challenging given the expansion of European club competition since then, and the World Cup's growth into a 48-team tournament. For the 2026 finals, players are expected 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 has highlighted that Saudi Arabia experiences its mildest temperatures between October and April. However, during June and July, when the World Cup is traditionally held, temperatures can exceed 40 degrees Celsius.
In contrast, the Norwegian football federation has voiced its criticism of FIFA's "flawed" process which seems to be favouring Saudi Arabia for the 2034 finals. The NFF has stated it will vote against any attempt to award the 2030 and 2034 finals by acclamation on Wednesday.
Both the Saudi bid and the joint Spain-Portugal-Morocco bid for 2030 are currently uncontested. The Nordic federation has formally expressed its disapproval of the process in a letter to FIFA and wants this criticism officially recorded in the Congress minutes.
To date, none of the British football associations have commented on either the process or specifically on Saudi Arabia's suitability to host the finals. This silence comes despite warnings from human rights campaigners about the potential risk to migrant workers without significant reforms.
Norway has publicly shared its concerns, with the federation stating in a statement that it "cannot endorse a process it considers flawed and inconsistent with the principles of FIFA’s own reforms". "Tomorrow’s vote is not about who gets the 2030 and 2034 World Cups – that has already been decided," said NFF president Lise Klaveness.
"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."
FIFA has been accused of a lack of transparency after Saudi Arabia emerged as the sole bidder to host the 2034 World Cup. FIFA's voting system means national associations cannot support one bid and oppose another, as the 2030 and 2034 decisions are combined into a single vote.
The decision to award the 2034 World Cup to Saudi Arabia was effectively made at a FIFA Council meeting on October 4 last year. Spain, Portugal and Morocco will host the 2030 World Cup, with South America hosting the opening three matches.
The rotation system meant only countries from Asia or Oceania were eligible to host 2034, and Saudi Arabia was the only country to put itself forward after Australia decided not to bid. "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).