Governance
FIFA's Human Rights Policy and the 2016 Ruggie Report: What Each Document Says
FIFA's human rights policy is the May 2017 document that puts into practice Article 3 of the FIFA Statutes, and it followed the independent Ruggie report of April 2016, which made 25 recommendations on how FIFA should embed respect for human rights. The report was written by John G. Ruggie, the author of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, at FIFA's request.
What is the Ruggie report?
The report is titled "For the Game. For the World.": FIFA and Human Rights and was published by Harvard Kennedy School as Corporate Responsibility Initiative Report No. 68. FIFA asked its author in December 2015 to develop recommendations on embedding respect for human rights across its global operations, using the UN Guiding Principles as the standard. The author retained sole editorial control and was supported by the non-profit organisation Shift.
The report places its work in a period of crisis for FIFA, referring to corruption arrests in May 2015 and to concerns about migrant workers in Qatar, forced evictions and restrictions on expression linked to tournaments. It also notes that in February 2016 the FIFA Congress adopted a statutory commitment to respect internationally recognised human rights.
What are the 25 recommendations?
The executive summary groups them under three changes: from constitution to culture, from reactive to proactive, and from insular to accountable. In the main text they are arranged under six headings, each with numbered recommendations.
The report adds that some steps could be taken immediately. Short-term priorities included addressing risks at tournaments already scheduled, finalising human rights requirements in the bidding documents for the 2026 Men's World Cup, and developing a policy and implementation strategy.
| Heading | Number of recommendations | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Adopt a clear and coherent human rights policy | 3 | Publish a policy that applies to leadership, staff, subsidiaries and relationships with member associations |
| Embed respect for human rights | 7 | Designate a member of top management accountable for human rights performance |
| Identify and evaluate human rights risks | 2 | Make human rights a substantive factor in host selection |
| Address human rights risks | 6 | Set explicit human rights requirements for Local Organising Committees in bidding documents |
| Track and report on implementation | 4 | Require public reporting by Local Organising Committees |
| Enable access to remedy | 3 | Require effective grievance mechanisms for each tournament |
Source: Ruggie, FIFA and Human Rights (2016), section 5
What did the report say about remedy, leverage and bidding?
The report treats effective remedy as a foundational principle. It recommended that FIFA require each Local Organising Committee to establish grievance mechanisms for human rights complaints, developed with local experts and representatives of potentially affected groups and meeting the effectiveness criteria of Principle 31 of the UN Guiding Principles.
It also recommended that FIFA review its existing football dispute resolution system so that it does not, in practice, leave human rights harms without an effective remedy. FIFA's own dispute bodies should have adequate expertise and procedures, and the report urged member associations, confederations and the Court of Arbitration for Sport to do the same. The review should involve independent experts and representatives of players.
The report defines leverage as the ability to influence the behaviour of those best placed to prevent harm, and it recommended that FIFA build leverage into supplier relationships from the earliest stage, including through contract terms. Where leverage fails to reduce severe impacts, FIFA should consider suspending or terminating the relationship or, if that is not possible, explain its mitigation efforts as transparently as possible.
On bidding, the report stated that human rights should be a substantive factor in host selection. It described this as a decision based on evidence of how bidders intend to address risks connected with a tournament, not a peremptory exclusion of countries based on their general human rights context.
What does FIFA's Human Rights Policy contain?
FIFA adopted the policy in its Council in May 2017 and published it on 8 June 2017 with an activity update covering the first year of its statutory commitment. The text says it specifies the Article 3 commitment and follows the UN Guiding Principles. It also covers the International Bill of Human Rights and the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work.
The policy lists salient risks, including labour rights, land acquisition and housing rights, discrimination, security, and the rights of players, with reference to trafficking and minors. It states that where national laws and international standards differ or conflict, FIFA will follow the higher standard without infringing domestic law.
Implementation rests on four pillars: commit and embed, identify and address, protect and remedy, and engage and communicate. The policy is addressed to FIFA bodies and staff and sets expectations for subsidiaries, confederations, member associations, organisers of competitions, commercial affiliates and suppliers.
How do the two documents line up?
Several recommendations have counterparts in the policy. The report advised publishing a policy that spells out Article 3, and the policy does so. The report advised including human rights in bidding and host selection, and the policy states that FIFA reflects its commitment in bidding and hosting requirements and takes human rights into account in selecting hosts.
On governance the policy assigns overall operational responsibility to the FIFA Secretary General and day-to-day management to the Head of the Sustainability & Diversity Department, who reports to the Secretary General. It refers to an independent, expert Human Rights Advisory Board and to the effectiveness criteria in Principle 31 of the UN Guiding Principles for grievance mechanisms, a benchmark the report also used.
