Michael Polak and Yasin Patel explore the intersection between human rights and the handling of ethical complaints by transnational sporting organisations, in The Law Society Gazette
Michael Polak and Yasin Patel discuss the recent human rights complaint made to FIFA regarding the 2034 World Cup in Saudi Arabia, and delve into the rule of law issues that arise when such complaints are made against an official or the governing committees of organisations such as FIFA or the IOC.
Michael and Yasin’s article was published in The Law Society Gazette, 18 July 2025, and can be found on pages 28 and 29, here.
FIFA’s has once again been brought into the spotlight following legal submissions regarding the 2034 World Cup in Saudi Arabia. The complaint follows earlier submissions in May 2024 which concluded that FIFA must be prepared to deny Saudi Arabia the right to host the 2034 men’s World Cup if the kingdom failed to comply with human rights obligations. Failure to do so would breach FIFA’s own rules the complaint argues.
The May 2024 report appears to have fallen on deaf ears. FIFA’s ethical complaints process will now be tested by how it deals with the May 2025 complaint which alleges breaches by FIFA’s executive. The complaint identifies five key areas why awarding the World Cup to Saudi Arabia has placed FIFA in breach of its own ethical provisions. These areas are:
i) freedom of expression and association;
ii) arbitrary arrests, mistreatment and the death penalty;
iii) judicial independence;
iv) migrants’ rights; and,
v) women’s rights.
The grievance is bolstered by a recent complaint to the International Labour Organization (“ILO”) over migrant worker abuse in the Kingdom ahead of the World Cup. FIFA’s governance as a whole has also been called into question by a joint statement which has accused football’s global governing body of being “more poorly governed” now than it was in 2015 when seven senior officials were arrested as part of a U.S. Department of Justice investigation into widespread corruption in the game.
Not only does the complaint about the 2034 World Cup hosts shine a light on rule of law and human rights problems in Saudi Arabia, but it also brings an opportunity to scrutinise how FIFA deals with ethical complaints. FIFA is not unique in this regard; the International Olympic Committee’s (“IOC”) has faced similar criticism over its alleged failure to follow its own ethical complaints procedures, such as its response to sexual assault allegations by Chinese tennis player Peng Shuai as well as its decision to award the Winter Olympics to Beijing in 2022 whilst ongoing mass repression and international crimes were taking place against the Uyghur people.
Adherence to rule of law principles is critical for organisations like FIFA, especially as their governing documents make access to Swiss courts – where they are located – are incredibly difficult. FIFA has appealed decisions made by the Court of Arbitation for Sport in Lausanne, to the Swiss Supreme Court. In rare instances, FIFA can be taken to the Swiss Supreme Court.
Article 3 of the FIFA General Statute provides that ‘FIFA is committed to respecting all internationally recognised human rights’. Article 8 states that all bodies and officials must observe the Statutes, regulations, decisions and Code of Ethics of FIFA in their activities. Article 14 mandates Member associations to prevent and fight against any kind of discrimination, to promote the development of women’s football and the full participation of women at all levels, and to comply fully with all other duties arising from these Statutes and other regulations. However, to determine whether FIFA’s system lives up to these lofty promises, one must consider how a complaint can be made, how will it be considered and by whom?
A rule of law–respecting system must uphold three values:
i) Independence,
ii) Impartiality, and
iii) Integrity.
In ethics complaints, these principles must apply to both the initial decision and any appeal. The process should also provide all parties the opportunity to present evidence and ensure an effective remedy for the alleged complaint.
For FIFA’s Ethics to be compatible with the rule of law, the systems including composition, appointment, functions, and procedures of the Ethics Committee should be in keeping with International standards.
In relation to the appointment of members personnel are proposed by FIFA’s Council to be elected by the Congress. Although they cannot be members of any other FIFA body, they are not prevented from having a ‘material business relationship with FIFA, a confederation or a member association’. This is worrying from a rule of law perspective which may affect the independence of the Committee and how it holds members to account.
The Ethics Committee is said to ‘be composed in such a way that the members, together, have the knowledge, abilities and specialist experience that is necessary for the due completion of their tasks. The chairpersons and deputy chairpersons of the judicial bodies shall be qualified to practise law.’ (para 3). The chairperson and deputy chairperson of the Ethics Committee and of the Appeal Committee ‘shall fulfil the independence criteria as defined in the FIFA Governance Regulations and must pass an eligibility check carried out by the Review Committee.’ (para 4). These provisions are pleasing from a rule of law angle, nonetheless, FIFA should be encouraged to adopt an independent appointment process for the appointment of its Ethics Committees.
The Ethics Committee’s function is to ‘investigate and judge the conduct of Persons’ who were bound by the Code of Ethics. The Code has many obligations including:
– respecting FIFA’s regulatory framework;
– behave with integrity;
– refrain from improper conduct;
– not breach fiduciary duty when acting in a way that is detrimental to the interests of FIFA;
– persons shall not discriminate in any way;
– not to make public statements towards FIFA or its personnel;
– not to be offensive;
– not to be abusive.
In theory, the provisions of the code prevent a range of unethical practices. However, the effectiveness of these will depend on the zeal of the Ethics Committee chair to investigate and pursue wrongdoing.
The sanctioning powers of the Ethics Committee for breaches of the Ethics Code or any other FIFA rules and regulations includes warnings, reprimands, compliance training, fines, stadium bans and bans on taking part in any football-related activity.
The obvious missing resolution is in relation to a sanction or resolution for situations, such as the awarding of the World Cup to Saudi Arabia, if that were to be found to be in breach of the Ethics Code. Therefore, a suggestion for improvement might be a power for the Ethics Committee to overturn decisions of the Council and even Congress, when made in breach of the Code.
In relation to the proceedings, the following processes apply:
i) filing of a complaint regarding potential breaches of this Code;
ii) initial evaluation and preliminary investigations;
iii) chairperson may engage third parties with investigative duties, experts, obtaining witness statements etc;
iv) if required, opening investigation proceedings, and the parties notified.
A key rule of law consideration is how an individual or group, such as those behind the Saudi Arabia submission, might be able to challenge a decision not to open an investigation. It appears that there is no set way of challenging such a decision.
Where investigation proceedings have begun, the chief investigator considers the matter, a final report on the investigation proceedings is produced, the chairperson of the adjudicatory chamber then examines this. If the matter is adjudicated, a copy of the final report and investigation files are sent to the parties and the case is decided on the basis of the report or a hearing to be scheduled.
The lack of a mandated hearing for these matters may also raise rule of law issues, especially when the individual or group making the complaint is not a party and is therefore unable to request that such a hearing takes place.
Should a hearing be held, the secretariat of the adjudicatory chamber must inform all the parties concerned and forward to them a procedural order, with the rules of the hearing, established by the chairperson of the Adjudicatory Chamber.
All the parties are entitled to attend the hearing to discuss and submit orally their respective requests. The adjudicatory committees access to different proofs of evidence include: documents; reports from officials; declarations from the parties; declarations from witnesses; audio and video recordings; and expert opinions.
The standard of proof applied by the Ethics Committee is their comfortable satisfaction. Before the Adjudicatory Chamber issues any final decision, the parties are entitled to submit their position and present evidence.
Hearings are then conducted behind closed doors and in the presence in situ of the requesting party. Hearings of the adjudicatory chamber are not open to the public, appearing to be in direct contravention of the principle of open justice.
The Chairperson of the Adjudicatory Chamber conducts the hearing in whatever manner they deem appropriate. It is recommended that proceedings, at the very least before the Adjudication should be held in public.
Given that there is no appeal process, an independent appeal body should be established to hear not only complaints from the Investigatory Committee and the subject of the complaint but also from the complaining individual or group to ensure that any alleged breach of the Ethical Code is determined properly.
Although there are some valuable provisions in the Ethical Code, minor amendments, changes and additions could make a large improvement from the Rule of Law perspective. Given the cost, both financial and reputational to FIFA of previous ethical failings, these changes are likely to be worthwhile in the long run and should be implemented as soon as possible and before the spotlight returns to this area as the Saudi World Cup gets closer.
Otherwise, FIFA will continue to have cases like that of Sepp Blatter, Michel Platini and other officials and allegations regarding the awarding of World Cups, as well as sexism, racism corruption, and bribery.
