Search

With this document FIFA lays down the main principles of its tobacco-free policy in relation to FIFA’s own international football competitions and other related events organised by FIFA (“FIFA Events”) and the official sites where such FIFA Events take place, to the extent that FIFA has the exclusive use or control of such sites (“Event Sites”).

Key dates in FIFA's work towards smoke-free sporting events:

1986: FIFA announces it will no longer accept advertising from tobacco-industry sponsors.

1999: At the FIFA Women’s World Cup™ in the USA, FIFA supports an anti-smoking campaign launched by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

2002: FIFA supports a smoke-free campaign launched by WHO and the HHS. World football’s governing body is consequently bestowed with the WHO Director General’s Award for an anti-smoking campaign.

2002: Korea/Japan becomes the first smoke-free FIFA World Cup, meaning it has no links whatsoever to tobacco. Every FIFA World Cup since has followed suit.

2010: FIFA, the LOC and other stakeholders develop and adopt the ‘Stadium Code of Conduct,’ which describes the applicable measures and policies for stadium visitors and staff, including prohibition of smoking in the stands and around the pitch.

2011: FIFA provides input to the European Healthy Stadia Network for policy position and enforcement guidelines for UEFA, concerning a smoke-free UEFA EURO 2012.

2013/2014: The FIFA Confederations Cup and FIFA World Cup in Brazil take place as tobacco-free events.

2015: World No Tobacco Day celebrated as 'World Smoke Free Day' at the FIFA U-20 World Cup New Zealand 2015.

2017/2018: Both the FIFA Confederations Cup and the FIFA World Cup in Russia are tobacco-free events.

A total of 11 White Papers have been produced, clustered into four themes referring to key stakeholder groups. These White Papers aim to present the latest thinking, practice, and debate in relation to key human rights issues involved in the planning, construction, delivery, and legacy of MSEs. Each paper also considers the case for, and potential role of, an independent centre of expertise on MSEs and human rights.

Broadcasting plays an important role in MSEs. It is the conduit by which a global audience accesses such events. Opinions differ on the role broadcasters should take when faced with broadcasting events which take place in challenging human rights contexts. Some argue that broadcasters should use this role to raise awareness of human rights issues in the host country. Others say that broadcasting the events is a tacit endorsement of local Governments whose policies may have an adverse impact on local communities. There is also a view that broadcasting MSEs allows local athletes to reach a global audience and exercise their human right to sporting activity.

This is a difficult balancing act. Aside from this broader question of whether to broadcast MSEs, there are also human rights considerations while broadcasting live events, such as ensuring freedom of expression, not propagating discrimination, protecting the right to privacy and avoiding self-censorship. These decisions have to be made on-the-spot, often in the context of regulatory requirements for impartiality, and with the potential for third party complaints.
Furthermore, broadcasters often do not have control over the material they broadcast.
There are different types of broadcasting models, ranging from sole editorial control over material, through to broadcasting clips from other broadcasters which may be based in different countries.
Broadcasters also do not control how a MSE is run, particularly as they only tend to become involved once a MSE has been awarded to a host city or country.

Sports governing bodies and the hosts have the greatest influence over the event.
Broadcasters therefore welcome the fact that sports governing bodies are increasingly looking to incorporate respect for human rights into their governance values and hosting requirements. This represents an opportunity, in turn, to embed human rights considerations into the fabric of an MSE. This approach can then be flowed down to corporates such as broadcasters, who can introduce ancillary human rights protections through their own operations.

Nevertheless, whilst a broadcaster’s role in a MSE is of a more supporting nature, their commercial significance to the MSE business model should still be recognised.
Broadcast licence fees are a major source of income for sports governing bodies.

Broadcasters should anticipate increasing scrutiny about their role in MSEs.
With reference to the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), this White Paper therefore explains the relationship between broadcasters and MSEs, identifies where human rights issues might arise, and discusses potential mechanisms which could be used – and in some cases already are being used – to address them.

Reflecting its contributors’ businesses, this discussion has an emphasis on the UK and European markets. It is intended that these examples can be supplemented by examples from the wider global market in subsequent discussions.