Skip to main content

Breakthrough or much ado about nothing? FIFA’s new bidding process in the light of best practice examples of human rights assessments under UNGP Framework

Abstract

Over the years, ‘Mega-Sporting Events’ (MSE) increasingly have been facing public indignation caused by MSE-linked human rights violations in hosting countries and accusations of corruption in the bidding processes. These negative implications have affected the legitimacy and reputation of MSE and led, besides other Sports Governing Bodies, the Fédération de Football Association (FIFA) to integrate human rights into their statues and internal policies and to adopt new, human rights-sensitive, Bidding Regulations. This paper evaluates whether the required human rights impact assessment (HRIA), required under the new Bidding Regulations, can be a ‘game changer’ for the protection of human rights in the context of MSE. Therefore, the article will first identify the new requirements as result of the recent MSE and human rights discourse and embed FIFA’s approach in the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGP) Framework. The paper will then identify standards and best practice examples for HRIA under the UNGP Framework, which serve as benchmarks for the evaluation of the approach taken by FIFA and its implementation by the submitted Bid Books. While parts of the framework for the HRIA established by FIFA are quite progressive, other parts do not qualify for ‘playing in the premier league’. Areas of concern are the meaningful engagement of stakeholders, monitoring as well as aspects of transparency. Therefore, the paper suggests to mandate a multi-stakeholder entity to develop the human rights strategy, to conduct the HRIA and to monitor the human rights performance, as well as to implement of a fixed human rights evaluation matrix.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Amis (2017), p. 135; Gibbson (2014); Williamson and Buchanan (2014); Human Rights Watch (2012); UN claims human rights violations in Brazil’s preparations for World Cup (2011); Bloomer and Neiva (2014).

  2. 2.

    Gibbson (2016); Henderson (2017), p. 368.

  3. 3.

    Mega-Sporting Events Platform for Human Rights. https://www.ihrb.org/megasportingevents/mse-about. Accessed 19 July 2019.

  4. 4.

    Amis (n.1), p. 135; Mega-Sporting Events Platform for Human Rights, Joint Statement, Diverse Coalition Commits to Establishing Centre for Sport & Human Rights in 2018, 30 November 2017. https://www.ihrb.org/uploads/news-uploads/Centre_for_Sport_and_Human_Rights_-_Joint_Statement_-_English.pdf. Accessed 19 July 2019.

  5. 5.

    According to Grell (2018).

  6. 6.

    HRC, Seventeenth Session ‘Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, John Ruggie; Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights : Implementing the United Nations ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy‘Framework’, 21 March 2011, A/HRC/17/31. http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Business/A-HRC-17-31_AEV.pdf. 07 June 2018.

  7. 7.

    Pfister (2007a, b), para. 7; according to FIFAs latest financial report FIFA recorded revenues of USD 502 million, FIFA, Financial Report 2016—67th FIFA Congress, 11 May 2017, p. 20. https://resources.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/footballgovernance/02/87/89/44/fr2016digitalen_neutral.pdf. Accessed 19 July 2019.

  8. 8.

    Summerer (2007a, b), para. 3 f.

  9. 9.

    See, for example, Matheson V and Baade R (2004), p. 1089; Matheson V (2006) p. 1; Müller M (2015), p. 6 f., Flyvberg B and Steward A (2012), p. 6.

  10. 10.

    There are only few exceptions, for example with regard to box sport, there are the WBO, WBF; IBO; Pfister B (2007a, b), Einführung. In: Fritzweiler J, et al., (eds.), Praxishandbuch Sportrecht (n. 7), para. 13ff.; Schimke and Eilers (2009a, b), p. 90; Vieweg (2018), The Appeal of Sports Law, p. 8. http://www.irut.de/Forschung/Veroeffentlichungen/OnlineVersionFaszinationSportrecht/FaszinationSportrechtEnglisch.pdf. Accessed 19 July 2019.

  11. 11.

    Gabris (2010), p. 173; Vieweg (2018) (n. 10); confirming the applicability of European competition law towards rules set by sport associations Case C-519/04 P Meca-Medina and Majcen v Commission of the European Communities [2006] ECR I-06991.

  12. 12.

    Pfister (2007a, b), para. 18f.

  13. 13.

    The term is used to refer to business entities operating in more than one country with operational separated units which coordinate their activities in the absence of effective control by domestic or international law.

  14. 14.

    Nolan (2015), p. 4; referring to Kinley and Nolan (2008), p. 358.

  15. 15.

    Alston P and Goodman R (2013), p. 1463.

  16. 16.

    Wells and Elias (2005), p. 145; Steinhardt (2005), p. 177; Muchlinski (2007), p. 515; Alston P and Goodman R (n. 15), p. 1461.

  17. 17.

    Krajewski (2017), §7 Rn. 11; stating the consequences in the context of human rights Alston P (2005), The ‘Not-a-Cat’ Syndrome: Can the International Human Rights Regime Accommodate Non-State Actors?. In: Alston P (ed.), Non-State Actors and Human Rights, OUP, New York, p. 3–6; Wells C and Elias J (n. 16).

  18. 18.

    Nowak and Januszewski (2015), pp. 113–115.

  19. 19.

    Nowak M and Januszewski K (n.18), pp. 115–116.

  20. 20.

    Bonnitcha J and McCorquodale R (2017), pp. 904–905.

  21. 21.

    Nolan (n.14), p. 10; Bonnitcha J and McCorquodale R (n. 20), p. 905; Nowak M and Januszewski K (n.18), p. 142.

  22. 22.

    Nowak M and Januszewski K (n.18), p. 116.

  23. 23.

    Nowak M and Januszewski K (n.18), pp. 119–123.

  24. 24.

    Nowak M and Januszewski K (n.18), pp. 115–116.

  25. 25.

    Nolan (n.14), p. 6 f.

  26. 26.

    The last attempt was undertaken by the UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights ECOSOC, Fifty-Third Session ‘Report of the sessional working group on the working methods and activities of transnational corporations on its third session’, 14 August 2001, UN Doc E/CN.4/Sub.2/2001/9, para 53. https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G01/153/64/PDF/G0115364.pdf?OpenElement. Accessed 19 July 2019; while there are ongoing negotiations of the open-ended working group, established by HRC, Twenty-Sixth Session ‘Elaboration of an international legally binding instrument on transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights, 14 July 2014, UN Doc A/HRC/RES/26/9. https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G14/082/52/PDF/G1408252.pdf?OpenElement. Accessed 19 July 2019; latest report HRC, Thirty-Seventh Session 26 February–23 March 2018, Report on the third session of the open-ended intergovernmental working group on transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights, 24 January 2018, UN Doc A/HRC/37/67. https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G18/017/50/PDF/G1801750.pdf?OpenElement. Accessed 19 July 2019.

  27. 27.

    Alvarez J E (2011), p. 31; Pentikäinen M (2012), p. 153.

  28. 28.

    https://www.unglobalcompact.org/. Accessed 11 June 2019.

  29. 29.

    Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights. https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/f623ce_60604aa96d1c4bdcbb633916da951f25.pdf. Accessed 11 June 2019.

  30. 30.

    Baughen (2015), pp. 212–225.

  31. 31.

    Alston P and Goodman R (n 15), pp. 1468–1471.

  32. 32.

    Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights, UN Doc E/CN.4/Sub.2/2003/12/Rev.2 (2003). https://undocs.org/en/E/CN.4/Sub.2/2003/12/Rev.2. Accessed 11 June 2019.

  33. 33.

    Spiesshofer (2018), p. 40, Baughen (n. 30), p. 226.

  34. 34.

    Wouters and Chané (2015), p. 238.

  35. 35.

    Spiesshofer (n. 33), p. 40.

  36. 36.

    UNCHR Res 69 (2005) UN Doc E/CN.4/RES/2005/65, para 1.

  37. 37.

    UNCHR, Sixty-Second Session ‘Interim report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises’, 22 February 2006, UN Doc E/CN.4/2006/97, paras 59-69.

  38. 38.

    Alston P and Goodman R (n.15), p. 1478.

  39. 39.

    Addo M (2014), p. 135.

  40. 40.

    n. 6.

  41. 41.

    Business entities are still bound by national laws, which can also impose human rights obligations like the French Law on the Corporate Duty of Vigilance, Loi no. 2017-399, 27 March 2017. https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/eli/loi/2017/3/27/ECFX1509096L/jo/texte. Accessed 5 June 2019.

  42. 42.

    Bonnitcha J and McCorquodale R (n. 20), p. 900.

  43. 43.

    UNGP 15.

  44. 44.

    UNHRC, Protect, Respect and Remedy: a Framework for Business and Human Rights, ‘Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, John Ruggie’, 7 April 2008, UN Doc a/HRC/8/5, para 56.

  45. 45.

    Baughen (n. 30), p. 235; Spiesshofer (n. 33), p. 79.

  46. 46.

    Spiesshofer (n. 33), p. 78.

  47. 47.

    UNHRC (n. 44), para 58.

  48. 48.

    Baughen (n. 30), p. 236.

  49. 49.

    Bonnitcha J and McCorquodale R (n. 20), p. 909.

  50. 50.

    Bonnitcha J and McCorquodale R (n. 20), p. 912.

  51. 51.

    Summerer T, 2. Teil. Sport, Vereine und Verbände. In: Fritzweiler J, et al., (eds.), Praxishandbuch Sportrecht (n.7), para 33; Pfister B, 6. Teil. Internationales Sportrecht. In: Fritzweiler J, et al., (eds.), Praxishandbuch Sportrecht (n. 7) fn. 14; Mega-Sporting Events Platform for Human Rights, Sports Governing Bodies and Human Rights Due Diligence (Sporting Chance White Paper 1.2, Version 1), 1 January 2017, p. 8. https://www.ihrb.org/uploads/reports/MSE_Platform%2C_Sports_Governing_Bodies_and_Human_Rights_Due_Diligence%2C_Jan_2017.pdf. Accessed 17 June 2019.

  52. 52.

    For SGBs firstly recognised in Case 36/74 Walrave and Koch v Association Union Cyliste Internationale, KONINKLIJKE Nederlandsche Wielren UNIE,. Federacion ESPAŇOLA Ciclismo [1974] ECR 01405; Case 73/76 Doná v Mantero [1976] ECR 1333; Case C-176/96 Lehtonen and Castors Canada Dry Namur-Braine ASBL v Fédération royale belge des sociétés de basket-ball ASBL (FRBSB) [2000] ECR I-2681; Case 415/93; Union royale belge des sociétés de football association ASBL v Bosman, Royal club liégeois SA v Bosman and others and Union des associations européennes de football (UEFA) v Bosman [1995] I-4921; Case C-519/04 P Meca-Medina and Majcen v Commission of the European Communities [2006] ECR I-06991.

  53. 53.

    Which are based on the UNGP see Krajewski, et al. (2016), p. 311; referring inter alia to Weidemann (2014), pp. 211–212.

  54. 54.

    National Contact Point of Switzerland, Initial Assessment: Specific Instance regarding the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) submitted by the Building and Wood Workers’ International (BWI), 13 October 2015; p. 6. https://www.seco.admin.ch/seco/de/home/Aussenwirtschaftspolitik_Wirtschaftliche_Zusammenarbeit/Wirtschaftsbeziehungen/NKP/Statements_zu_konkreten_Faellen.html. Accessed 19 July 2019; National Contact Point of Switzerland, Initial Assessment: Specific Instance regarding the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) submitted by Americans for Democracy and Human Rights in Bahrain (ADHRB), 17 August 2016, p. 4. https://www.seco.admin.ch/seco/de/home/Aussenwirtschaftspolitik_Wirtschaftliche_Zusammenarbeit/Wirtschaftsbeziehungen/NKP/Statements_zu_konkreten_Faellen.html. Accessed 19 July 2019.

  55. 55.

    A similar approach was taken in the assessment concerning the World Wide Fund for Nature International - National Contact Point of Switzerland, Initial Assessment: Specific Instance regarding the World Wide Fund for Nature International (WWF) submitted by Survival International Charitable Trust, 20 December 2016, p. 7.

  56. 56.

    National Contact Point of Switzerland, Initial Assessment: Specific Instance regarding the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) submitted by the Building and Wood Workers’ International (BWI), 13 October 2015; p. 6. https://www.seco.admin.ch/seco/de/home/Aussenwirtschaftspolitik_Wirtschaftliche_Zusammenarbeit/Wirtschaftsbeziehungen/NKP/Statements_zu_konkreten_Faellen.html. Accessed 19 July 2019.

  57. 57.

    National Contact Point of Switzerland, Final Statement: Specific Instance regarding the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) submitted by the Building and Wood Workers’ International (BWI), 02 May 2017, p. 3. https://www.seco.admin.ch/seco/de/home/Aussenwirtschaftspolitik_Wirtschaftliche_Zusammenarbeit/Wirtschaftsbeziehungen/NKP/Statements_zu_konkreten_Faellen.html. Accessed 19 July 2019.

  58. 58.

    Salcito et al. (2015), p. 1; MacNaughton (2015), p. 64.

  59. 59.

    Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay) [2010] ICJ Reports p. 14.

  60. 60.

    Ibid., p. 83 para 204.

  61. 61.

    MacNaughton (n.58), pp. 64–65.

  62. 62.

    The Danish Institute for Human Rights, Human Rights Impact Assessment – Guidance and Toolbox, 2016, p. 6, 15 f. https://www.humanrights.dk/sites/humanrights.dk/files/media/dokumenter/business/hria_toolbox/hria_guidance_and_toolbox_final_may22016.pdf_223795_1_1.pdf. Accessed 19 July 2019.

  63. 63.

    Spiesshofer (2018), p. 86.

  64. 64.

    BSR (2013); Watson et al. (2013), p. 124; The Danish Institute for Human Rights (n.62).

  65. 65.

    Harrison (2011), p. 172.

  66. 66.

    BSR (n.64), p. 8.

  67. 67.

    Harrison (n.65), p. 172-178.

  68. 68.

    IAIA (2017).

  69. 69.

    It is important at this point to mention that the following identified standards concern stand-alone HRIAs.

  70. 70.

    Salcito et al. (n.58), p. 3; Harrison (n.65), p. 173; The Danish Institute for Human Rights (n.62), p. 40.

  71. 71.

    The Danish Institute for Human Rights (n.62), p. 9.

  72. 72.

    UDHR, ICESCR, ICCPR.

  73. 73.

    Minimum standard as required by Principle 13 UNGP.

  74. 74.

    World Bank and Nordic Trust Fund (2013), p. 14; The Danish Institute for Human Rights (n.62), p. 24.

  75. 75.

    The Danish Institute for Human Rights (n.62), p. 41.

  76. 76.

    World Bank and Nordic Trust Fund (n.74), p. 23.

  77. 77.

    Harrison and Stephenson (2010), p. 45.

  78. 78.

    Salcito et al. (n.58), p. 4; to establish a scoring system is also vital for evidence collection.

  79. 79.

    The Danish Institute for Human Rights (n.62), p. 35.

  80. 80.

    World Bank and Nordic Trust Fund (n.74), pp. xi, 24.

  81. 81.

    Harrison (n.65), p. 174.

  82. 82.

    OHCHR (2012).

  83. 83.

    Ibid. 51–64; World Bank and Nordic Trust Fund (n.74), p. 24; Harrison (n.65), p. 175.

  84. 84.

    OHCHR (n.82), p. 52.

  85. 85.

    Harrison and Stephenson (n.77), p. 51.

  86. 86.

    See, for example, Harrison (2013), pp. 109, 112 f.; World Bank, Nordic Trust Fund (n.74), p. xi.

  87. 87.

    HRC (2007), p. 4; MacNaughton (n.58), p. 65 with reference to IAIA, What is Impact Assessment?, October 2009. http://iaia.org/uploads/pdf/What_is_IA_web.pdf. Accessed 19 July 2019; Harrison (n.86), p. 110.

  88. 88.

    Some scholars and guidelines use instead of stakeholder the term rightsholder; see, for example, Kemp and Vanclay (2013), p. 91; This is not only a difference in terminology but a different approach, since rightsholder is a much narrower concept than stakeholder. For a meaningful HRIA, it is crucial that both groups, rights holders and stakeholders, are effectively involved, The Danish Institute for Human Rights (n.62), p. 10.

  89. 89.

    Harrison (n.86), p. 114.

  90. 90.

    Croal et al. (2012), p. 3.

  91. 91.

    Exceptions occur when indigenous people are involved, see Croal (n.90).

  92. 92.

    On Common Ground Consultants Inc., Human Rights Assessment of Goldcorp’s Marlin Mine, May 2010, p. 8. http://www.hria-guatemala.com/en/docs/Human%20Rights/OCG_HRA_Marlin_Mine_May_17.pdf. Accessed 19 July 2019.

  93. 93.

    Harrison and Stephenson (n.77), p. 52.

  94. 94.

    BSR (n.64), p. 15; Harrison and Stephenson (n.77), p. 56.

  95. 95.

    Harrison (n.65), p. 179.

  96. 96.

    The only reasonable exception could be that the publication would endanger the enjoyment of human rights by assessors, rightholders or other stakeholders; see González, Evaluating the Human Rights Impact of Investment Projects – Background, Best Practices, and Opportunities, PODER, 2014, p. 54. https://www.projectpoder.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/PODER-HRIA-Best-Practices-Dec-2014.pdf. Accessed 19 July 2019.

  97. 97.

    The Danish Institute for Human Rights (n.62), p. 84.

  98. 98.

    Harrison and Stephenson (n.77), p. 55.

  99. 99.

    World Bank and Nordic Trust Fund (n.74), p. 29.

  100. 100.

    World Bank and Nordic Trust Fund (n.74), p. 29.

  101. 101.

    González (n.96), p. 80.

  102. 102.

    González (n.96), p. 80.

  103. 103.

    The Danish Institute for Human Rights (n.62), p. 10.

  104. 104.

    Which would require an expansion of the mandate of the Working Group see Harrison (n.86), p. 115.

  105. 105.

    UNICEF et al. (2007), p. 4.

  106. 106.

    Ibid., p. 10.

  107. 107.

    Krieger and Ribar (2008), p. 8.

  108. 108.

    Ibid., p. 9.

  109. 109.

    Ibid.

  110. 110.

    UNICEF et al. (n.105).

  111. 111.

    Harrison and Stephenson (n.77), p. 44.

  112. 112.

    Privalova Krieger and Rubar (2008), p. 96.

  113. 113.

    Harrison and Stephenson (n.77), p. 48.

  114. 114.

    UNICEF et al. (n.105), p. 11.

  115. 115.

    UNICEF et al. (n.105), p. 27.

  116. 116.

    Ibid.

  117. 117.

    McGill research Group Investigating Canadian Mining in Latin America, Marline Mine. http://micla.ca/conflicts/marlin-mine-2/. Accessed 30 May 2018.

  118. 118.

    Ibid.

  119. 119.

    On Common Ground Consultants Inc., (n.92), p. 8.

  120. 120.

    Memorandum of Understanding Between Goldcorp Inc. and the Shareholder Group, 19 March 2008. http://hria-guatemala.com/en/docs/Steering%20Committee/Memorandum_of_Understanding_03_19_08.pdf. Accessed 19 July 2019.

  121. 121.

    OXFAM America (2015), p. 24.

  122. 122.

    Boele and Crispin (2013), p. 129; Harrison (n.86), p. 115; The Danish Institute for Human Rights (n.62), pp 48, 87.

  123. 123.

    Memorandum of Understanding between Goldcorp Inc. and the Shareholder Group, (n.120) 1.

  124. 124.

    www.hria-guatemala.com. Accessed 19 July 2019.

  125. 125.

    Steering Committee (2008a).

  126. 126.

    Steering Committee (2008b).

  127. 127.

    Steering Committee (2008c).

  128. 128.

    Only the Steering Committee was competent to declare some factual information as confidential, On Common Ground Consultants Inc. (n.92), p. 12.

  129. 129.

    OXFAM America (n.121), p. 26.

  130. 130.

    On Common Ground Consultants Inc. (n.92), p. 13 f.

  131. 131.

    Ibid., p. 18.

  132. 132.

    Nestlé, Addressing human rights impacts - Our commitment: Assess and address human rights impacts across our business activities. https://www.nestle.com/csv/impact/respecting-human-rights/human-rights-impacts. Accessed 4/23/2018.

  133. 133.

    The Danish Institute for Human Rights, Nestlé Partnership. https://www.humanrights.dk/projects/nestle-partnership. Accessed 19 July 2019.

  134. 134.

    Bansal and Wyss (2013a, b), p. 13.

  135. 135.

    Foreword by Allan Lerberg Jorgensen in Bansal and Wyss (n.134), p. 6.

  136. 136.

    Bansal and Wyss (n.134).

  137. 137.

    CHRB (2017), p. 11.

  138. 138.

    Bansal and Wyss (n.134), p. 22.

  139. 139.

    Established for example in the HRIA at Nestlé Nigeria addressing the Nestlé Flowergate factory, Bansal and Wyss (n.134), p. 33.

  140. 140.

    Bansal and Wyss (n.134).

  141. 141.

    Bansal and Wyss (n.134) 35.

  142. 142.

    Spiesshöfer (n. 33), p. 86.

  143. 143.

    Alston P and Goodman R (n. 15), p. 1464.

  144. 144.

    Mega-Sporting Events Platform for Human Rights, Host Actors and Human Rights Due Diligence in the Sports Context (Sporting Chance White Paper 2.1, Version 1), 1 January 2017, p. 23. https://www.ihrb.org/uploads/reports/MSE_Platform%2C_Host_Actors_and_Human_Rights_Due_Diligence_in_the_Sports_Context%2C_Jan_2017.pdf. Accessed 17 June 2019.

  145. 145.

    The 2010 FIFA World Cup final was followed by 619,7 million people, and the overall coverage of the World Cup reached 3.2 billion people, 46.4% of the world’s population. http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/news/y=2011/m=7/news=almost-half-the-world-tuned-home-watch-2010-fifa-world-cup-south-africat-1473143.html. Accessed 19 July 2019.

  146. 146.

    Referring to the indictment of former FIFA officials Bean (2016), p. 367; Bean (2017), p. 71; identifying the non-intervention principle as one of the major roots for the evolvement of corrupt practices Hylton (2017), pp. 136-140.

  147. 147.

    FIFA (2016); FIFA (2017a), p. 10.

  148. 148.

    FIFA (2017b).

  149. 149.

    FIFA (2017c).

  150. 150.

    Grell (n.5); FIFA, Guide to the bidding process of the 2026 FIFA World Cup (n.147), p. 7.

  151. 151.

    FIFA, Bidding registration regarding the submission of Bids for the hosting and staging of the 2026 FIFA World Cup™, p. 26. http://resources.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/administration/02/91/85/50/biddingregistration_neutral.pdf. Accessed 19 July 2019.

  152. 152.

    Generally, the determination to strive for good governance is reflected inter alia in the installation of a Audit and Compliance Committee by Art. 51 FIFA Statutes (April 2016), even though at the beginning these reforms faced certain obstacles O. Gibson, FIFA’s independent audit committee chairman resigns in protest at reforms, The Guardian, 14 May 2016. https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/may/14/domenico-scala-fifa-auditor-resigns-protest. Accessed 19 July 2019.

  153. 153.

    FIFA, Bidding registration regarding the submission of Bids for the hosting and staging of the 2026 FIFA World Cup (n.151), p. 18.

  154. 154.

    FIFA (2017d).

  155. 155.

    FIFA, Bidding registration regarding the submission of Bids for the hosting and staging of the 2026 FIFA World Cup (n.151), p. 26.

  156. 156.

    FIFA, Guide to the bidding process of the 2026 FIFA World Cup (n.147), p. 10.

  157. 157.

    Art. 3 ‘FIFA is committed to respecting all internationally recognised human rights and shall strive to promote the protection of these rights’; Art. 4 ‘Discrimination of any kind against a country, private person or group of people on account of race, skin colour, ethnic, national or social origin, gender, disability, language, religion, political opinion or any other opinion, wealth, birth or any other status, sexual orientation or any other reason is strictly prohibited and punishable by suspension or expulsion’, FIFA Statutes (April 2016).

  158. 158.

    FIFA, Bidding registration regarding the submission of Bids for the hosting and staging of the 2026 FIFA World Cup (n.151), p 43.

  159. 159.

    FIFA, Guide to the bidding process of the 2026 FIFA World Cup (n.147), p. 10.

  160. 160.

    Grell (n.5); Guide to the bidding process of the 2026 FIFA World Cup (n.147), p. 32; See FIFA, Structure, Content, Presentation, Format and Delivery of Bid for the 2026 FIFA World Cup, Sect. 23 i) a) and b) p. 26 f. http://resources.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/administration/02/91/61/10/structure.content.and.format.of.bid_neutral.pdf. Accessed 19 July 2019.

  161. 161.

    FIFA, Structure, Content, Presentation, Format and Delivery of Bid for the 2026 FIFA World Cup (n.160).

  162. 162.

    Ibid.

  163. 163.

    OHCHR (2011).

  164. 164.

    FIFA, Structure, Content, Presentation, Fromat and Delivery of Bid for the 2026 FIFA World Cup (n.160), p. 26.

  165. 165.

    Human Rights Council A/HRC/4/23/Add.2 (2007) Report of the Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially women and children, para 60.

  166. 166.

    OHCHR, Guiding Principles on Business and Human Right (n.163), Commentary Principle 31.

  167. 167.

    Moroccan Football Association and a Joint submission by the Canadian Soccer Association (2018).

  168. 168.

    John Ruggie (2016), p. 34 Recommendation. 5.1.

  169. 169.

    See FIFA, Structure, Content, Presentation, Format and Delivery of Bid for the 2026 FIFA World Cup (n.160), p. 27.

  170. 170.

    See above 3.2.2.1.

  171. 171.

    Bidding Nation Morocco. https://www.marocco26.com; United 2026.https://www.united2026.com. Accessed 30 May 2018.

  172. 172.

    United 2026 (2018a).

  173. 173.

    Bidding Nation Morocco, Submission by the Moroccan Football Association, 26 March 2018. https://www.morocco26.com/#Press/2. Accessed 30 Mai 2018.

  174. 174.

    FIFA, Official Documents. http://www.fifa.com/about-fifa/official-documents/index.html. Accessed 19 July 2019.

  175. 175.

    Royal Moroccan Football Federation, Bidding Nation Morocco – Bid Book, March 2018, p. 357. http://resources.fifa.com/image/upload/morocco-2026-bid-book.pdf?cloudid=weegrtyecqg3hjw8hmmr. Accessed 19 July 2019.

  176. 176.

    Ibid., p. 364.

  177. 177.

    Ibid., p. 352.

  178. 178.

    Ibid., pp. 349, 369.

  179. 179.

    Ibid., p. 366 f.

  180. 180.

    For example, the Commitment with regard to Human Rights signed by the FRMF-President in Royal Moroccan Football Federation, Bidding Nation Morocco –Bid Book (n.175), p. 363.

  181. 181.

    And therefore will timely and completely report on plans and decisions United 2026, Bid Book, March 2018, p. 448. http://resources.fifa.com/image/upload/united-2026-bid-book.pdf?cloudid=w3yjeu7dadt5erw26wmu. Accessed 19 July 2019.

  182. 182.

    Ibid., p. 357.

  183. 183.

    United provided a list with possible host cities exceeding the required number of cities United 2026 (2018c), p. 7.

  184. 184.

    Developed by Human Rights Campaign for examining the inclusiveness of policies, laws and services of LGBTQ. http://www.hrc.org/mei. Accessed 19 July 2019.

  185. 185.

    Ruggie addressed the issue of clear guidance of the Bidding Associations in its study for FIFA, Ruggie (n.168), p. 32.

  186. 186.

    See FIFA, Structure, Content, Presentation, Format and Delivery of Bid for the 2026 FIFA World Cup (n.160), p. 27.

  187. 187.

    AccountAbility, AA1000 Stakeholder Engagement Standard, 2015, p. 1. https://www.accountability.org/standards/. Accessed 19 July 2019.

  188. 188.

    Royal Moroccan Football Federation (n.175), p. 354.

  189. 189.

    Ibid., p. 365.

  190. 190.

    Ibid., p. 353.

  191. 191.

    United 2026 (2018b), pp. 460 ff.

  192. 192.

    United consulted four government agencies, 28 NGOs, five Universities and a variety of local NGOs see United 2026, Proposal for a United Human Rights strategy (n.183), pp. 80 ff.

  193. 193.

    United 2026, Canada, Mexico, and the United States - United Bid to host the 2026 FIFA World Cup (n.191), p. 462.

  194. 194.

    Ruggie (n.168), p. 21 f.

  195. 195.

    See Ibid p. 32. Recommendation 4.1.

  196. 196.

    3.1.3.1.

  197. 197.

    Mega-Sporting Events Platform for Human Rights, Championing Human Rights in the Governance of Sport Bodies, March 2018, p. 17.

  198. 198.

    FIFA, Regulations for the Selection of the venue for the final competition of the 2016 FIFA World Cup (n.148), Regulation 3.1.

  199. 199.

    Ibid., Regulation 4.1.

  200. 200.

    Described above 4.2.

  201. 201.

    As recommended by Ruggie in Ruggie (n.168), p. 30 Recommendation 2.4.

  202. 202.

    The scoring system applies at the moment only to technical and financial aspects of the bid.

  203. 203.

    https://www.corporatebenchmark.org/. Accessed 19 July 2019.

  204. 204.

    Illustrating some of the critism Harrison and Sekalala (2015), p. 931.

  205. 205.

    3.1.2.

  206. 206.

    FIFA, Regulations for the Selection of the venue for the final competition of the 2016 FIFA World Cup (n.148), Regulation 3.5 subsection 1.

  207. 207.

    For example the assessment of EPO’s Operations in Liberia mandated to Triponel Consulting Ltd., Triponel Consulting Ltd., Assessing Human Rights Impacts at Epo’s Liberian Operations, 26 July 2017. http://www.epoil.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/humanrightsimpactassessment-executivesummary2017.pdf. Accessed 19 July 2019; On Common Ground Consultants Inc. (n.92).

  208. 208.

    FIFA, Structure, Content, Presentation, Format and Delivery of Bid for the 2026 FIFA World Cup (n.160), p. 26 f.

  209. 209.

    United 2026, Proposal for a United Human Rights strategy (n.183), p. 20.

  210. 210.

    Ibid.

  211. 211.

    United 2026, Canada, Mexico, and the United States - United Bid to host the 2026 FIFA World Cup (n.191), p. 460.

  212. 212.

    Royal Moroccan Football Federation, Bidding Nation Morocco –Bid Book (n.175), p. 369.

  213. 213.

    Royal Moroccan Football Federation, Human Rights Strategy in connection with the 2026 FIFA World Cup™, p. 16.

  214. 214.

    As proposed by Harrison (n.86), p. 115.

  215. 215.

    FIFA, BID EVALUATION REPORT – 2026 FIFA WORLD CUP™, p. 109. https://resources.fifa.com/image/upload/bid-evaluation-report-2026-fifa-world-cuptm.pdf?cloudid=ir3g14juxglqbbteevvf. Accessed 19 July 2019.

References

  1. Addo MK (2014) The reality of the United Nations guiding principles on business and human rights. Hum Rights Law Rev. https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngt041

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Alston P (ed) (2005) Non-state actors and human rights. OUP, New York

    Google Scholar 

  3. Alston P, Goodman R (2013) International human rights: the successor to international human rights in context. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  4. Alvarez JE (2011) Are corporations “subjects” of international law? Santa Clara J Int Law 9:1–36

    Google Scholar 

  5. Amis L (2017) Mega-sporting events and human rights—a time for more teamwork. Bus Hum Rights J. https://doi.org/10.1017/bhj.2016.29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bansal T, Wyss Y (2013) Talking the human rights walk: Nestlés experience assessing human rights impacts in its business activities. https://www.humanrights.dk/sites/humanrights.dk/files/media/dokumenter/udgivelser/nestle-hria-white-paper.pdf. Accessed 25 Apr 2018

  7. Bansal T, Wyss Y (2013) Talking the human rights walk: Nestlés experience assessing human rights impacts in its business activities. p 13. https://www.humanrights.dk/sites/humanrights.dk/files/media/dokumenter/udgivelser/nestle-hria-white-paper.pdf. Accessed 19 July 2019

  8. Baughen S (2015) Human rights and corporate wrongs: closing the governance gap. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham

    Book  Google Scholar 

  9. Bean BW (2016) An interim essay on FIFA’s World Cup of corruption: the desperate need for international corporate governance standards at FIFA. ILSA J Int Comp Law 22:367–392

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bean BW (2017) The perfect crime? FIFA and the absence of accountability in Switzerland. Md J Int Law 32:68–133

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bloomer P, Neiva JM (2014) Brazil world cup: FIFA and business miss an open goal for human rights. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/brazil-world-cup-fifa-business-goal-human-rights. Accessed 19 July 2019

  12. Boele R, Crispin C (2013) What direction for human rights impact assessments? Impact Assess Proj Apprais. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2013.771005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bonnitcha J, McCorquodale R (2017) The concept of ‘due diligence’ in the UN guiding principles on business and human rights. Eur J Int Law. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chx042

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. BSR (2013) How to conduct an effective human rights impact assessment: guidelines, steps, and examples. https://www.bsr.org/reports/BSR_Human_Rights_Impact_Assessments.pdf. Accessed 19 July 2019

  15. CHRB (2017) Corporate human rights benchmark: key findings. p 11. https://www.corporatebenchmark.org/sites/default/files/styles/thumbnail/public/2017-03/Key%20Findings%20Report/CHRB%20Key%20Findings%20report%20-%20May%202017.pdf. Accessed 19 July 2019

  16. Croal et al. (2012) Respecting indigenous peoples and traditional knowledge: international best practice principles, IAIA Special Publication Series No. 9. p 3. http://www.iaia.org/uploads/pdf/SP9_Indigenous_Peoples_Traditional_Knowledge.pdf. Accessed 19 July 2019

  17. FIFA (2016) FIFA council agrees on four-phase bidding process for 2026 FIFA World Cup. http://www.fifa.com/about-fifa/news/y=2016/m=5/news=fifa-council-agrees-on-four-phase-bidding-process-for-2026-fifa-world–2790472.html. Accessed 19 July 2019

  18. FIFA (2017a) Guide to the bidding process of the 2016 FIFA World Cup. p 10. http://resources.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/administration/02/91/88/61/en_guidetothebiddingprocessforthe2026fifaworldcup_neutral.pdf. Accessed 19 July 2019

  19. FIFA (2017b) Regulations for the selection of the venue for the final competition of the 2026 FIFA World Cup™. https://resources.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/administration/02/91/60/99/biddingregulationsandregistration_neutral.pdf. Accessed 19 July 2019

  20. FIFA (2017c) FIFA publishes guide to bidding process for the 2026 FIFA World Cup™. http://www.fifa.com/about-fifa/news/y=2017/m=10/news=fifa-publishes-guide-to-bidding-process-for-the-2026-fifa-world-cuptm-2916170.html. Accessed 19 July 2019

  21. FIFA (2017d) FIFA’s human rights policy. http://resources.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/footballgovernance/02/89/33/12/fifashumanrightspolicy_neutral.pdf. Accessed 19 July 2019

  22. Flyvberg B, Steward A (2012) Olympic proportions: cost and cost overrun at the Olympics 1960–2012. Saïd Business School working papers, Saïd Business School, University of Oxford, June 2012

  23. Gabris T (2010) The specificity of sports in the international and EU law. Annals of ‘Constantin Brancusi’ University of Targu-Jiu. Juridical Science Series (Issue 2) 169–200

  24. Gibbson O (2014) Sochi games hold up as a symbol of Olympic extravagance and waste. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/feb/05/sochi-games-olympic-extravagence-cost-winter-russia. Accessed 19 July 2019

  25. Gibbson O (2016) FIFA faces legal challenge over Qatar migrant workers. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/oct/10/fifa-faces-legal-challenge-over-qatar-migrant-workers-world-cup-2022. Accessed 19 July 2019

  26. Grell T (2018) Human rights as selection criteria in bidding regulations for mega-sporting events—part II: FIFA and comparative overview, ASSER international sports law blog. http://www.asser.nl/SportsLaw/Blog/post/human-rights-as-selection-criteria-in-bidding-regulations-for-mega-sporting-events-part-ii-fifa-and-comparative-overview-by-tomas-grell. Accessed 19 July 2019

  27. Harrison J (2011) Human rights measurement: reflections on the current practice and future potential of human rights impact assessment. J Hum Rights Pract. https://doi.org/10.1093/jhuman/hur011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Harrison J (2013) Establishing a meaningful human rights due diligence process for corporations: learning from experience of human rights impact assessment. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2013.7747183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Harrison J, Sekalala S (2015) Addressing the compliance gap? UN initiatives to benchmark the human rights performance of states and corporations. Rev Int Stud. https://doi.org/10.1017/s026021051500039x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Harrison J, Stephenson M-A (2010) Human rights impact assessment: review of practice and guidance for future assessments. http://fian-ch.org/content/uploads/HRIA-Review-of-Practice-and-Guidance-for-Future-Assessments.pdf. Accessed 30 May 2018

  31. Henderson AM (2017) Mega sporting events procedures and human rights: enveloping an inclusive framework. Am Indian Law Rev 41:367–408

    Google Scholar 

  32. HRC (2007) Fourth session ‘report of the special representative of the secretary-general on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises: human Rights impact assessment—resolving key methodological questions’. A/HRC/4/74. p 4. https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G07/106/14/PDF/G0710614.pdf?OpenElement. Accessed 19 July 2019

  33. Human Rights Watch (2012) Building a better world cup—protecting migrant workers in Qatar ahead of FIFA 2022. https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/qatar0612webwcover_0.pdf. Accessed 19 July 2019

  34. Hylton GJ (2017) How FIFA used the principle of autonomy of sport to shield corruption in the Sepp Blatter Era. Md J Int Law 32:134–159

    Google Scholar 

  35. IAIA (2017) key citations series—human rights impact assessment. http://www.iaia.org/uploads/pdf/Key%20Citations_HRIA%2017%20Oct.pdf. Accessed 19 July 2019

  36. Kemp D, Vanclay F (2013) Human rights and impact assessment: clarifying the connections in practice. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2013.782978

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kinley D, Nolan J (2008) Trading and aiding human rights: corporations in the global economy. Nord J Hum Rights 25:353–377

    Google Scholar 

  38. Krajewski M (2017) Völkerrecht. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Book  Google Scholar 

  39. Krajewski M et al (2016) Menschenrechtliche Pflichten von multinationalen Unternehmen in den OECD-Leitsätzen: taking Human Rights More Seriously. ZaöRV 76:309–340

    Google Scholar 

  40. Krieger YP, Ribar E (2008) Child rights impact assessment of economic policies: a case study from bosnia and herzegovina. p 8. https://www.childimpact.unicef-irc.org/documents/view/id/113/lang/en. Accessed 19 July 2019

  41. MacNaughton G (2015) Human rights impact assessment—a method for healthy policymaking. Health Hum Rights. https://doi.org/10.2307/healhumarigh.17.1.63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Matheson V (2006) Mega-events: the effect of the world’s biggest sporting events on local, regional, and national economies. International Association of Sports Economists Working Paper Series, International Association of Sports Economists, October 2006

  43. Matheson V, Baade R (2004) Mega-sporting events in developing nations. South Afr J Econ. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1813-6982.2004.tb00147.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Moroccan Football Association and a Joint submission by the Canadian Soccer Association (2018) Mexican football association and the United States soccer federation (United), see FIFA, 2026 FIFA World Cup bid books now available. http://www.fifa.com/about-fifa/news/y=2018/m=3/news=2026-fifa-world-cup-bid-books-now-available.html. Accessed 19 July 2019

  45. Muchlinski PT (2007) Multinational enterprises and the law. OUP, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  46. Müller M (2015) The mega-event syndrome: why so much goes wrong in mega-event planning and what to do about it. J Am Plan Assoc. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2015.1038292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Nolan J (2015) All care, no responsibility? Why corporations have limited responsibility and no direct accountability for human rights violations under international law. In: Blecher L, Kaymar Stafford N, Bellamy GC (eds) Corporate responsibility for human rights impacts—new expectations and paradigms. American Bar Association, Lanham, pp 3–25

    Google Scholar 

  48. Nowak M, Januszewski KM (2015) Non-state actors and human rights. In: Noortmann M, Reinisch A, Ryngaert C (eds) Non-state actors in international law. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 113–161

    Google Scholar 

  49. OHCHR (2011) Guiding principles on business and human rights—implementing the United Nations ‘protect, respect and remedy’ framework. HR/PUB/11/04, Commentary Principle 18. http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.pdf. Accessed 19 July 2019

  50. OHCHR (2012) Human rights indicators—a guide to measurement and implementation. HR/PUB/12/5. http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/Human_rights_indicators_en.pdf. Accessed 19 July 2019

  51. OXFAM America (2015) Community voice in human rights impact assessments. p 24. https://www.oxfamamerica.org/static/media/files/COHBRA_formatted_07-15_Final.pdf. Accessed 19 July 2019

  52. Pentikäinen M (2012) Changing international “subjectivity” and rights and obligations under international law—status of corporations. Utrecht Law Rev. https://doi.org/10.18352/ulr.185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Pfister B (2007a) Einführung. In: Fritzweiler J, Pfister B, Summerer T (eds) Praxishandbuch Sportrecht, 2nd edn. C. H. Beck, München, pp 1–27

    Google Scholar 

  54. Pfister B (2007b) 6. Teil. Internationales Sportrecht. In: Fritzweiler J, Pfister B, Summerer T (eds) Praxishandbuch Sportrecht, 2nd edn. C. H. Beck, München, pp 501–581

    Google Scholar 

  55. Privalova Krieger Y, Rubar E (2008) Child rights impact assessment of economic policies in bosnia and Herzegovina: a case study of proposed electricity price increase. Forum 21:94–102. https://www.childimpact.unicef-irc.org/documents/view/id/115/lang/en. Accessed 30 May 2018

  56. Ruggie JG (2016) For the game. For the world. Fifa and human rights. Corp Responsib Initiat Rep 68:1–41

    Google Scholar 

  57. Salcito K et al (2015) Experience and Lessons from health impact assessment for human rights impact assessment. BMC Int Health Hum Rights. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12914-015-0062-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Schimke M, Eilers G (2009a) Vereins- und Verbandsrecht. In: Nolte M, Horst J (eds) Handbuch Sportrecht. Hofmann-Verlag, Schorndorf, pp 87–120

    Google Scholar 

  59. Schimke M, Eilers G (2009b) Vereins- und Verbandsrecht. In: Nolte M, Horst J (eds) Handbuch Sport. Hofmann-Verlag, Schorndorf, p 90

    Google Scholar 

  60. Spiesshofer Birgit (2018) Responsible enterprise. The emergence of a global economic order. C. H. Beck oHG, München

    Google Scholar 

  61. Steering Committee (2008a) Human rights impact assessment contractors selected and website established. http://hria-guatemala.com/en/docs/Impact%20Assessment/Steering_Committee_Announcement_of_Seleciton_of_Contractors_10_01_08.pdf. Accessed 19 July 2019

  62. Steering Committee (2008b) Request for proposal (RFP): human rights impact assessment. http://hria-guatemala.com/en/docs/Impact%20Assessment/REQUEST_FOR_PROPOSAL_07_14_08.pdf. Accessed 19 July 2019

  63. Steering Committee (2008c) Human rights impact assessment marlin mine—on common ground’s statement on ethical principles. http://hria-guatemala.com/en/docs/Impact%20Assessment/Ethical_Principles_Final_12_12_08.pdf. Accessed 19 July 2019

  64. Steinhardt R (2005) Corporate responsibility and the international law of human rights: the new Lex Mercatoira. In: Alston P (ed) Non-state actors and human rights. OUP, New York, p 177

    Google Scholar 

  65. Summerer T (2007a) 2. Teil. Sport, Vereine und Verbände. In: Fritzweiler J, Pfister B, Summerer T (eds) Praxishandbuch Sportrecht, 2nd edn. C. H. Beck, München, pp 93–235

    Google Scholar 

  66. Summerer T (2007b) 4. Teil. Sport und Medien. In: Fritzweiler J, Pfister B, Summerer T (eds) Praxishandbuch Sportrecht, 2nd edn. C. H. Beck, München, pp 336–397

    Google Scholar 

  67. UN claims human rights violations in Brazil’s preparations for World Cup (2011) Merco Press. http://en.mercopress.com/2011/04/28/un-claims-human-rights-violations-in-brazil-s-preparations-for-world-cup. Accessed 19 July 2019

  68. UNICEF et al. (2007) Child rights impact assessment of potential electricity price rises in bosnia and herzegovina. p 4. https://www.unicef.org/bih/CRIA_ENGLISH_FINAL_FINAL.pdf. Accessed 19 July 2019

  69. United 2026 (2018a) United 2026 releases seven supplemental reports to its official proposal to FIFA. https://www.united2026.com/news.html . Accessed 25 Apr 2018

  70. United 2026 (2018b) Canada, Mexico, and the United States—United Bid to host the 2026 FIFA World Cup, 16 March 2018, pp. 460 ff. http://resources.fifa.com/image/upload/united-2026-bid-book.pdf?cloudid=w3yjeu7dadt5erw26wmu. Accessed 19 July 2019

  71. United provided a list with possible host cities exceeding the required number of cities United 2026 (2018c) Proposal for a united human rights strategy. p 7. https://img.fifa.com/image/upload/s2xnrvfjg9kp0zelhxnt.pdf. Available 19 July 2019

  72. Vieweg K (2018) The appeal of sports law. http://www.irut.de/Forschung/Veroeffentlichungen/OnlineVersionFaszinationSportrecht/FaszinationSportrechtEnglisch.pdf. Accessed 23 Apr 2018

  73. Watson G, Tamir I, Kemp B (2013) Human rights impact assessment in practice: Oxfam’s application of a community-based approach. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2013.771007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Weidemann K (2014) Der Beitrag der OECD-Leitsätze für multinationale Unternehmen zum Schutz der Menschenrechte. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  75. Wells C, Elias J (2005) Catching the conscience of the king: corporate players on the international stage. In: Alston P (ed) Non-state actors and human rights. OUP, New York, p 145

    Google Scholar 

  76. Williamson H, Buchanan J (2014) The international Olympic committee skating on thin ice in Sochi. Huffington Post. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/hugh-williamson/the-international-olympic_b_4687457.html. Accessed 19 July 2019

  77. World Bank and Nordic Trust Fund (2013) Human rights impact assessments: a review of the literature, differences with other forms of assessments and relevance for development. p 14. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/PROJECTS/Resources/40940-1331068268558/HRIA_Web.pdf. Accessed 19 July 2019

  78. Wouters J, Chané A-L (2015) Multinational corporations in international law. In: Noortmann M, Reinisch A, Ryngaert C (eds) Non-state actors in international law. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 225–251

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

The author wishes to acknowledge the valuable support and assistance by Dr. Johanna Grzywotz, Dr. Rhea Hoffmann, Dr. Ibrahim Kanalan and Prof. Dr. Markus Krajewski.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Florian Kirschner.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kirschner, F. Breakthrough or much ado about nothing? FIFA’s new bidding process in the light of best practice examples of human rights assessments under UNGP Framework. Int Sports Law J 19, 133–153 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40318-019-00156-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Bidding requirements
  • FIFA and human rights
  • Human rights impact assessment
  • UNGP
  • FIFA World Cup 2026™