Over 100 professional female footballers have united in a letter urging FIFA to terminate its sponsorship agreement with the state-owned Saudi Arabian oil company Aramco, citing the country’s “brutal human rights violations.
”The four-year partnership, established in April, will see Aramco, which is 98.5% state-owned, sponsor major events, including the men’s World Cup in 2026 and the Women’s World Cup in 2027. Critics argue that Saudi Arabia is engaging in “sportswashing,” attempting to improve its image through investments in sports while obscuring its dismal human rights record.
Recently, the Saudi regime has imposed lengthy prison sentences on several women after secret trials, targeting those who advocated for women’s rights on social media.
In their letter published on Monday, the athletes emphasized that young girls, who will become future players, deserve far better from the sport’s governing body than its “allyship with this nightmare sponsor.
”The signatories stated: “Saudi authorities have been spending billions in sports sponsorship to try to distract from the regime’s brutal human rights reputation, but its treatment of women speaks for itself.
“It is because we stand alongside the citizens of Saudi Arabia whose human rights are violated that we are speaking out. We don’t want to be part of covering up these violations.
“We urge FIFA to reconsider this partnership and replace Saudi Aramco with alternative sponsors whose values align with gender equality, human rights, and the safe future of our planet.
“A corporation that bears glaring responsibility for the climate crisis, owned by a state that criminalizes LGBTQ+ individuals and systematically oppresses women, has no place sponsoring our beautiful game.”
The U.S. Soccer Federation (USSF) has successfully defended itself against an antitrust lawsuit filed by the now-defunct North American Soccer League (NASL).
The NASL had accused US Soccer and Major League Soccer (MLS) of conspiring to block its ability to compete at the highest level of men's professional soccer by repeatedly denying its applications for Division II status.
The league argued that USSF’s sanctioning process unfairly favored MLS, preventing independent leagues from gaining recognition and financial stability.
However, the jury ruled in favor of US Soccer and MLS, stating that the NASL’s failure was due to its own mismanagement rather than an unfair system.
Reacting to the verdict, US Soccer president Cindy Parlow Cone stated, “This decision reaffirms that our federation operates in the best interests of the sport and its growth in the U.S.”
The ruling comes as a relief to MLS and US Soccer, which faced significant legal challenges over their governance of professional leagues.
The lawsuit had raised concerns over whether the USSF holds too much power in determining league sanctioning, an issue that could have reshaped the landscape of American soccer had the NASL won the case.
Critics, however, believe that the case exposed deeper issues in how professional leagues are structured, with former NASL executive Rishi Sehgal arguing, “The current system remains closed and anti-competitive, limiting opportunities for independent clubs to thrive.”
While the legal battle has ended, discussions over the structure and accessibility of professional soccer in the U.S. will likely continue.
.png)