Saudi Arabia’s 2034 World Cup bid gets higher score than US, Canada and Mexico

Saudi Arabia’s 2034 World Cup bid received a higher technical score from FIFA than the 2026 joint bid by the United States, Canada and Mexico even though the Middle East nation has yet to construct several stadiums proposed for the tournament.

FIFA released its bid evaluation report and said the 2034 bid received an overall average score of 4.2 out of 5 even though eight stadiums are still to be built.

All venues — including the planned 92,760-seater King Salman International Stadium in Riyadh — will not be completed until 2032 but three new stadiums are expected to be finished for the Asian Cup which kicks off in January 2027.

Meanwhile, the 2026 bid scored 4.0 having initially proposed 23 stadiums — all of which were already built. Eventually, 16 host cities for the 2026 World Cup were announced, with many venues being existing NFL stadiums.

“The (Saudi) bid includes some ambitious stadium projects integrated into unique locations, including the Prince Mohammed bin Salman Stadium located within the Qiddiya development and NEOM Stadium located within ‘The Line’ development,” FIFA’s report said.

FIFA added that although Saudi Arabia’s “one-of-a-kind” stadium projects have a lot of potential, the “proposed configuration and location” would “require a reimagining of operations, with some associated unknowns or challenges at this moment in time”.

NEOM, a Red Sea urban and industrial development nearly the size of Belgium due to house nearly nine million people, is central to the prince’s Vision 2030 plan to create new engines of economic growth beyond oil.

But some of the schemes have had to be scaled back due to rising costs, including ‘The Line’, a futuristic city between mirrored walls extending 170 km (106 miles) into the desert within NEOM.

“Consequently, should the bid be successful, it would be imperative to closely monitor and support these projects from initiation to completion,” FIFA added.

Stadiums alone account for 35% of the overall score awarded to bids and FIFA said the level of risk in the 2026 bid was low. However, the Saudi bid had a medium level of risk.

“Due to the overall scale of the stadium projects, as well as the novel designs and configurations proposed in some cases, there is an elevated risk profile,” FIFA said.

However, they added that the risk was mitigated as Saudi Arabia have a strong team in place and ample time to deliver on the projects.

CUP VOTE

Ahead of the World Cup vote next month, Minister of Sports, Prince Abdulaziz bin Turki Al Faisal, said FIFA’s score reflects Saudi Arabia’s commitment to grow the game and their “rapid transformation”.

Votes are due to be held at the FIFA Congress next month to approve the 2030 and 2034 World Cups, though each has only a single bid.

“It is the result of our extensive efforts to present an exceptional bid. It’s a testament to the collaboration between multiple entities across the Kingdom,” Prince Al-Faisal said.

Saudi Arabia is the lone bidder for 2034 while a combined bid from Morocco, Spain and Portugal is the sole one for 2030. The 2030 World Cup bid also received a score of 4.2.

FIFA said the Saudi bid did not stipulate a proposed window for the World Cup but they would collaborate with stakeholders to “determine the optimal timing” for the tournament.

Due to the country’s desert climate, the 2034 World Cup may be pushed to a winter slot — just as FIFA did with the 2022 edition in neighbouring Qatar.

Amnesty International and the Sport & Rights Alliance (SRA) said earlier this month that FIFA must halt the process to pick Saudi Arabia as hosts of the 2034 tournament unless major human rights reforms are announced before the vote.

FIFA’s bid report said Saudi Arabia submitted commitments to “respecting, protecting and fulfilling internationally recognised human rights”.

Those include areas of “safety and security, labour rights of migrant workers, rights of children, gender equality and non-discrimination, as well as freedom of expression (including press freedom).”