FIFA: For the Game or For-Profit?

RACHAEL E. BANDEIRA*

INTRODUCTION

T
he Fédération Internationale de Football Association (“FIFA”),
the primary organizer of the World Cup, is one of several
organizations receiving tax exemptions from the Internal
Revenue Service (“IRS”).1 FIFA’s stated mission is to advance humanitarian
efforts through soccer’s unifying qualities, and FIFA relies on this
statement to insist that it promotes social welfare for the purpose of
receiving a tax exemption.2 Despite FIFA’s claim that its budget contributes
primarily to these humanitarian efforts, the breakdown of its recent
expenses and revenue shows that it is centered primarily around turning a
profit for its own (rather than the public) good.3 This Note will argue that
the way FIFA currently operates and structures its budget is insufficiently
meeting the aforementioned requirements set out by the IRS.4 Specifically,
FIFA’s actions and inactions in response to the human rights violations and
denials of fundamental freedoms (which FIFA’s own Code of Ethics claims
to vehemently fight for and protect) being carried out by the governments
of World Cup hosts, are gross violations of its legal, moral, and ethical
obligations to promote social welfare.5 Therefore, FIFA should hold itself
accountable by either making more of a moral or financial contribution to

* Candidate for Juris Doctor, New England Law | Boston (2018). B.A., History, Oberlin College

(2010). I would like to thank all of the editors and associates on the New England Law Review
for their editorial contributions to this Note, as well as my family and friends for their
constant love and support.
1 Henrik Bohme, FIFA’s Controversial Business Model, DW (May 27, 2017),
https://perma.cc/2EPC-SH8V.
2 See FIFA, Our Strategy, ABOUT FIFA, https://perma.cc/4CST-UVT5 (last visited Mar. 11,

2018).
3 See FIFA, Financial and Governance Report 2015, 66th FIFA CONGRESS (May 12–13, 2016),
https://perma.cc/JY8K-DHXK.
4 Infra Part III. A., III. B.
5See generally FIFA, Code of Ethics, FIFA (2012), https://perma.cc/HX9V-HTPB (last visited
Mar. 11, 2018); Infra Part I. E.

423
424 New England Law Review Vol. 51|2

the World Cup, or should be held accountable by the IRS and have its tax-
exempt status revoked.6

I. South Africa 2010, Brazil 2014, Russia 2018, Qatar 2022

A. Although Many International Sporting Events Have Been the Focus

of Several Corruption Scandals and Human Rights Violations, this
Note Will Specifically Focus on the Two Most Recent, and the Two
Upcoming World Cups

In May 2004, FIFA announced that it had chosen South Africa as its
World Cup host for the summer of 2010.7 As noted by the New York Times,
South Africa had not previously been a dominant force in international
soccer due to its apartheid policies, but was nevertheless selected by FIFA
to be the first African host nation.8 Despite the fact that its designation as
World Cup host brought with it a pivotal new perception of the country as
a member of the global sporting community after the abolition of
apartheid, this Note will discuss several instances of human rights
violations that marred an otherwise celebratory occasion.9
Three years later, in October 2007, Brazil was officially named the host
of the 2014 World Cup.10 This decision came after the other candidates for
the tournament withdrew their bids, but FIFA still placed a heavy burden
on Brazil by naming them hosts of the world’s largest international
sporting event.11 Sepp Blatter, FIFA President at the time, stated that the
country had “given to the world the best football and the best footballers,”
noting the fact that their national team has won the tournament five times;
not only putting enormous pressure on their team to perform well at home,
but on the country as a whole to put together a successful event.12 FIFA

6 Infra Part III, IV.

7
South Africa gets 2010 World Cup, CNN (May 15, 2004, 9:30 AM EDT),
https://perma.cc/U8BW-43DE.
8 Jere Longman, SOCCER; South Africa Is Named Host of 2010 World Cup, THE NEW YORK

TIMES (May 16, 2004), https://perma.cc/54ND-YBJU (noting that South Africa was “[o]nce
shunned by the international sporting community” . . . specifically that “[f]rom 1964 until
1992, South Africa was banned from participating both in the World Cup and the Olympics
because of its discriminatory policies of apartheid.” The article goes on to highlight that South
Africa was chosen by FIFA over Morocco and Egypt, while other countries such as Tunisia
and Libya dropped out of the bidding process).
9 Infra, Part I. E. 1.
10 Brazil to Host 2014 World Cup, CNN (Oct. 30, 2007), https://perma.cc/QPL3-QE58.
11Vicki Hodges, Brazil to Stage 2014 World Cup, THE TELEGRAPH (Oct. 30, 2007),
https://perma.cc/M32R-UQSE (explaining that Brazil was the sole candidate to host the World
Cup despite earlier indications that there would be bids from Argentina and Columbia).
12 Id.
2017 FIFA: For the Game or For-Profit? 425

initially voiced concerns over whether Brazil would be ready to host a

tournament of this magnitude due to its existing infrastructure and
security, but determined that it was “more than capable of hosting an
exceptional World Cup.”13 What should have brought the country together,
ripped it apart.14 Not only did this prove to be a problem economically as
well as taking significantly longer than was projected (putting into
jeopardy its ability to host at all), as this Note will discuss, it also led to
blatant human rights abuses by the government against their most
vulnerable and impoverished communities.15
In December 2010, FIFA announced jointly that Russia and Qatar
would host the next two World Cup tournaments, in 2018 and 2022,
respectively.16 The move was controversial because the extreme heat
conditions in Qatar required FIFA to change the timeframe of the event,
which is usually over the summer, to the winter of 2022. Additionally,
other countries who submitted bids felt it was unfair because they had
technically superior bids.17 The decision to award the event to these two
countries was intended to make history in that the World Cup has never
been hosted in either Eastern Europe or the Middle East.18 However, these
two countries have already had numerous instances of both human rights
violations as well as instances of stifling generally recognized freedoms
which FIFA claims to protect in its Code of Ethics, which, as discussed in
this Note, have already tainted the two countries’ events.19

II. FIFA Has Been Classified as a Non-Profit Organization for the

Purposes of Receiving Certain Tax Benefits and, Therefore, Must
Comply with its Stated Primary Objective

According to FIFA’s website, its mission has three pillars to support

13 Id.
14 See generally Bill Wilson, Fifa World Cup ‘Hits the Poorest Hardest’, BBC NEWS (September 8,

2014), https://perma.cc/YY3T-4KQS.
15 See Owen Gibson, World Cup 2014: Brazil Still Facing Issues with 100 Days to Go, THE

GUARDIAN (Mar. 3, 2014), https://perma.cc/8BJM-46FF; see also Richard Conway, World Cup
2014: Fifa Concerns About Three Brazil Stadiums, BBC SPORT (May 30, 2014),
https://perma.cc/3R3U-H27H; Infra, Part I. E. 2.
16 Jere Longman, Russia and Qatar Win World Cup Bids, THE NEW YORK TIMES (Dec. 2, 2010),

https://perma.cc/VDM9-7FUJ.
17 See generally id.; Guardian Sport, 2022 Qatar World Cup to Last 28 Days with Final to be

Played on 18 December, GUARDIAN (Sept. 25, 2015), https://perma.cc/FEK3-GSS6.

18 Longman, supra note 16; Jamie Jackson, Qatar Wins 2022 World Cup Bid, GUARDIAN (Dec.
2, 2010), https://perma.cc/7CH9-29T6.
19 See James Reevell, Could Fifa Really Take the World Cup from Russia or Qatar?, BBC NEWS

(June 8, 2015), https://perma.cc/9KWU-2G85; Infra Part I. E. 3., Part I. E. 4.

426 New England Law Review Vol. 51|2

its tagline “For the Game. For the World.”20 Its primary objective is “to
improve the game of football constantly and promote it globally in the light
of its unifying, educational, cultural and humanitarian values, particularly
through youth and development programmes.”21
Its secondary objective is to “organise international football
competitions.”22 In doing so, it claims that the revenue gained from hosting
the “biggest single-sport competition in the world: the FIFA World Cup”23
is utilized to help build up the other sporting events and clubs that fall
under its purview.24
Further, FIFA’s tertiary objective falls under its section “Caring about
society and the environment,”25 in which it states “[w]e believe that we
have a duty to society that goes beyond football: to improve the lives of
young people and their surrounding communities, to reduce the negative
impact of our activities and to make the most we can of the positives.”26
Although all three can be interpreted as addressing social welfare
concerns, two of the three stated objectives on its site, (the primary and
tertiary) explicitly make clear that FIFA (in theory) takes global social
welfare concerns to heart.27

A. Under 26 U.S.C.A. § 501, Internal Revenue Code § 501, Certain

Organizations (Including FIFA) are Deemed Tax-Exempt

The following categories of organizations are deemed exempt from

certain tax requirements:
Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but
operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local
associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to
the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular
municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted
exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.28

According to the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), to be tax-exempt as

a social welfare organization as described in Internal Revenue Code

20 See FIFA, Our Strategy, supra note 2.

21The ‘Three Pillars’ of FIFA’s Mission, Turks & Caicos Is. Int’l Football Ass’n,
https://perma.cc/7N67-RH3D (last visited Mar. 11, 2018).
22 Id.
23 FIFA World Cup, FIFA.COM, https://perma.cc/7JK4-S49M (last visited Mar. 11, 2018).
24 Id.
25 Id.
26 Turks and Caicos Islands Football Association, https://perma.cc/ET2P-YB7S (last visited

Mar. 11, 2018).

27 Id.
28 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(4)(A) (2015).
2017 FIFA: For the Game or For-Profit? 427

(IRC) section 501(c)(4), an organization must not be organized for profit

and must be operated exclusively to promote social welfare
In the introduction to its Technical Instruction Program, the IRS
clarified that under this section of the Code, the basic concept it is trying to
adhere to in allowing certain groups to qualify as tax-exempt is that
“[o]rganizations that promote social welfare should primarily promote the
common good and general welfare of the people of the community as a
whole.”29 In the “Social and Recreational Activities” section, the
introduction states that under Reg. 1.501(c)(4)-1(a)(2)(ii) “social and
recreational activities are not social welfare activities.”30 It goes on to clarify
that “if a substantial part of an organization’s activities consists of social
functions for the benefit, pleasure, and recreation of its members, it may
qualify for exemption under IRC 501(c)(4) if it is primarily engaged in
social welfare activities.”31 Therefore, FIFA should only be allowed to
continue with its tax-exempt status if it is able to show that social welfare is
its main objective.32 This Note will argue that although FIFA purports to be
primarily engaged in social welfare through its officially stated objective,33
its actions and inactions in light of the blatant human rights abuses
occurring as a direct result of the demands and recommendations it makes
to the host country of the World Cup are flagrant violations of promoting
social welfare.34

B. Human Rights Violations During World Cup Preparations

1. In South Africa: Forced evictions, public violence, and

police brutality

Much of South Africa’s actions, and inactions, which resulted in

human rights violations, were the government’s attempt to comply with
FIFA’s standards and requirements for hosting a World Cup.35 The South
African government promoted and supported police action to remove
housing and force the inhabitants to relocate.36 In order to accomplish this,

29 John Francis Reilly, Carter C. Hull, & Barbara A. Braig Allen, IRC 501(c)(4) Organizations,

Exempt Organizations Technical Instruction Program for FY 2003, IRS.gov I-3,

https://perma.cc/YMW6-9XY8 (last visited Mar. 11, 2018).
30 Id. at I-27.
31 Id.
32 See id.
33 See supra Part I. C. 3.
34 Infra Part III.
35 South Africa: Human Rights Concerns During the World Cup, AMNESTY USA (March 27,
2011), https://perma.cc/9C38-XW6E.
36 Anders Kelto, South Africa Hides Its Homeless Ahead of World Cup, NPR (June 10, 2010),
428 New England Law Review Vol. 51|2

the inhabitants were not given notice, permanent or temporary housing (in
most cases), or any form of compensation in exchange for their forced
evictions.37 In fact, the South African government broke its own laws
against forced evictions in order to comply with FIFA’s demands to build
infrastructure and other World Cup-related requests.38 Following these
evictions, the South African government then faced a growing need to
address the increasing homeless population.39 In an attempt to address
both the many people who were forcibly evicted from their homes as well
as the people illegally occupying buildings, the South African government
created what they called “emergency housing” as temporary residences.40
One such area was called “Blikkiesdorp” or more informally, “Tin Can
Town.”41 Although referred to as a “temporary relocation area” (“TRA”) by
the mayor of Cape Town, many of its residents felt that it was more like a
concentration camp, and that the conditions inside the walls were “worse
than in the townships created during apartheid.”42 Outside of
impoverished areas like Tin Can Town, South Africa was building
stadiums, improving its infrastructure, and revamping its airport which
they hoped would be used by tourists and World Cup fans—roughly a
billion-dollar undertaking.43 However, inside of the walls of Tin Can Town,
residents were facing extreme poverty, violence, brutality, and
unemployment.44 The housing structures in Tin Can Town, in stark
contrast to the buildings being built and upgraded for the World Cup,
were rows upon rows of one-room metal shacks, with an identifying code
spray-painted on the side—approximately 3,000 shacks being used to
house close to 15,000 people.45 Inside, there were sub-standard toilets,
leaking roofs, and no shower facilities.46 The school-aged children living
there were often sent to school without substantial food, if any at all, and
families struggled to provide even soup to eat.47 At night, the police went
through the “town” and beat those people, even children, who refused to

https://perma.cc/AKU5-8425.
37 Id.
38 South Africa: Human Rights Concerns During the World Cup, supra note 35.
39 See id.; David Smith, Life in ‘Tin Can Town’ for the South Africans Evicted Ahead of World
Cup, THE GUARDIAN (April 1, 2010), https://perma.cc/QZM2-Z7BQ.
40 Smith, supra note 39.
41 Id.
42 Id.
43 Id.; Sudarsan Raghavan, In Preparation for World Cup, the Poor in Cape Town are Being

Relocated, THE WASHINGTON POST (June 11, 2010), https://perma.cc/5LQY-F2GB.

44 South Africa: Human Rights Concerns During the World Cup, supra note 35.
45 Smith, supra note 39.
46 Id.
47 Id.
2017 FIFA: For the Game or For-Profit? 429

comply with their orders.48 Further, many of the inhabitants were left
unemployed because their jobs were to build stadiums and other
infrastructure for the World Cup and once these tasks were completed
there was nothing left for them to do.49 In short, while the World Cup in
some ways brought the world’s attention to South Africa—and in some
ways brought increased revenue and other resources to a country which
was in desperate need of them—South Africa worked to spend these
resources on the parts of the country it wanted the world to see, and to
comply with FIFA’s demands, to the detriment of its own citizens.50 A four-
week international event masked a much larger national impact, internally
affecting South Africa’s economic, political, and social well-being.51

2. Four years after the World Cup in South Africa, Brazil

faced similar problems

The Brazilian government, much like the South African government,

turned to forcibly evicting the most vulnerable of its citizens—those living
in the slums or “favelas”—in order to build infrastructure and stadiums
which were not already in existence.52 Brazil spent billions of dollars on
reconstructing its roads and highways, improving its public transportation
system and renovating its airports, among several other endeavors.53
Unlike the South African government’s violations of its own legislature,
many of Brazil’s forced evictions were technically legal under its own
system, albeit clearly, moral and ethical wrongdoings.54 For example, the
neighborhood of Porto Alegre, Brazil’s largest favela, was not recognized
by the country’s property rights legislation and therefore the government
was able to forcibly evict the residents of this neighborhood very easily.55
This means that the government, in evicting the residents of the favelas,
did not need to provide much, if any, compensation in exchange.56 Despite
being technically legal under national legislation, these actions obviously
posed a larger ethical issue: the most vulnerable citizens were uprooted

48 Id.

49 Id.
50 See id.; see also Raghavan, supra note 43.
51 See Smith, supra note 39; South Africa: Human Rights Concerns During the World Cup, supra
note 35; see also Raghavan, supra note 43.
52 Ilya Somin, Brazil Forcibly Displaced Thousands of People to Make Way for the World Cup, THE

WASHINGTON POST (JUNE 18, 2014), https://perma.cc/Y4SE-V468.

53 Id. (noting that Brazil spent nearly $14 billion).
54 Id.
55 Id.
56 Wilson, supra note 14.
430 New England Law Review Vol. 51|2

with no notice or compensation, in order to build or improve infrastructure

that would be used during the World Cup, but would likely not be used
very much afterwards.57 According to some reports, the amount that Brazil
spent on hosting the event was equivalent to 61% of its education funding
and 30% of its healthcare funding.58
Many of Brazil’s forced evictions had devastating impacts on the
children who were forcibly removed from their homes and
neighborhoods.59 Children were taken out of their schools and faced
extreme poverty as a result of relocating to even worse off
neighborhoods.60 Importantly, it has been documented that while host
countries (like South Africa and Brazil) foot the bill for construction and
renovation of stadiums and other infrastructure, FIFA gained billions of
dollars through the revenue of the event.61 Throughout this Note, it will be
obvious that FIFA needs to do more to account for its role as the hosting
organization of the World Cup, rather than shifting the burden to the host
country while reaping the benefits of doing so—especially when so many
human rights violations were discovered and implicitly condoned as a
result of the demands it makes of its host countries.62

3. In Russia, these human rights violations have included

denying freedom of expression and freedom of assembly,
as well as government-sponsored discrimination against
the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersexual
(“LGBTI”) community

Russia’s human rights issues and social welfare concerns differ from
those that were prominent in South Africa and Brazil.63 Unlike the concerns
of those two countries, the concerns in Russia are not a direct result of FIFA
and the World Cup.64 Many of the concerns have to do with state-

57 Somin, supra note 52.

58 T.J. Petrowski, The Human Cost of the FIFA World Cup, GLOBAL RESEARCH (July 5, 2014),
https://perma.cc/E8Q4-HJ66.
59 See Wilson, supra note 14.
60 Id.
61 Id.; Infra Part III. A (explaining that FIFA focuses on making a profit and acts more like a

for-profit organization than a non-profit organization).

62 See Wilson, supra note 14.
63 Amnesty International, Violation of the Right to Freedom of Expression, Association and
Assembly in Russia, AMNESTY INT’L ( October 2, 2014), https://perma.cc/T6R5-J6WQ (describing
how the Russian government stifles criticism and expression to keep control over the public).
64 See id. at 2–3, 6 (explaining the development of laws and policies by the Russian

government to control the public).

2017 FIFA: For the Game or For-Profit? 431

controlled violations of the Russian Constitution, the denial of several

freedoms (expression, assembly, etc.), and discrimination against the
LGBTI community.65 Although the Russian Constitution explicitly allows
for the freedom of media and prohibits censorship, there have been several
new laws introduced that would allow for the government to have a great
deal more control of the internet.66 Additionally, there has been an
increased number of instances in which journalists have been “physically
assaulted and killed in Russia . . . while those who have committed these
crimes continue to enjoy impunity.”67 There have also been several
instances of prosecution and harassment of journalists who voice their
dissenting opinions against the Russian government, while these incidents
have been severely under-investigated, if investigated at all, by the
government.68 Print and broadcast media began to increasingly restrict
information provided by people with opposing views from being
presented or available on their outlets, resulting in people with more
independent viewpoints turning to the internet to voice their opinions.69
However, this led the government to begin introducing and advocating for
legislation which would allow them to restrict the types of information and
independent viewpoints available online.70
The Russian Constitution also guarantees the right to freedom of
peaceful assembly.71 In addition to taking direct action to restrict the
freedom of media in Russia, the government has also taken steps to restrict
the right to the freedom of assembly.72 There has been a wave of new
legislation that takes a tough stance on this right, not only by restricting
one’s ability to protest, but also by making the sanctions and penalties for
doing so increasingly harsh.73 To protest, one must both notify and “seek

65 Id. at 1–2, 8–9.

66 Id. at 1–2.
67
Violation of the Right to Freedom of Expression, Association and Assembly in Russia, supra note
63, at 3.
68
Id. (drawing attention to specific cases in which Russian journalists were physically
assaulted—for example, Mikhail Beketov, Oleg Kashin and Elena Milashina—with a focus on
journalist Sergei Sokolov, a writer for the independent newspaper Novaya Gazeta, “was
reportedly taken to a forest and openly threatened by none other than the Chair of the
Investigative Committee (a stand-alone agency responsible for investigation of serious crime),
Aleksandr Bastrykin.”).
69 Id. at 2.
70 See id. at 2–3.
71 Id. at 6.
72 Id.
73 Violation of the Right to Freedom of Expression, Association and Assembly in Russia, supra note
63.
432 New England Law Review Vol. 51|2

an express, prior permission” from the authorities.74 Unsurprisingly,

express permission has been extremely rare, and the authorities often cite
“reasons of public safety or convenience (the obstruction of pedestrians or
public transport)” in order to justify denying permission.75
As was brought under scrutiny in the years and months leading up to
the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, the Russian government also publicly
engages in what Amnesty International refers to as “Government-
Sponsored Homophobia.”76 Despite de-criminalizing same-sex relations in
1993, new legislation in Russia has been introduced that has extremely
homophobic sentiments and prohibits public displays in favor of same-sex
relations.77 Additionally, LGBTI activists have increasingly and
continuously been denied the right to hold public meetings or assemblies.78
In denying these rights, authorities have often simply cited that it would
result in the “inability to ensure participants’ safety” as well as “objections
from ‘local residents’.”79 Further, there have been instances of persecution
of LGBTI Non-Governmental Organizations (“NGOs”), violence against
members of the LGBTI community, and a “lack of legal recognition [of the
LGBTI community] as a social group.”80
Although these violations of the Russian Constitution and human
rights are not a direct result of the FIFA or the World Cup, as seen when
South Africa and Brazil hosted, and as is already being seen ahead of FIFA
World Cup 2022 in Qatar, they are contrary to the values and ethics that
FIFA promotes as its own.81 In its Code of Ethics, FIFA explicitly states that
its members and its organization as a whole must follow the rules set
therein, including its section on Non-discrimination which states:
Persons bound by this Code may not offend the dignity or
integrity of a country, private person or group of people through
contemptuous, discriminatory or denigratory words or actions on

74 Id.
75 Id.
76 Violation of the Right to Freedom of Expression, Association and Assembly in Russia, supra note

63, at 7.
77Id. (detailing how Russia recently passed “[a] law banning homosexual ‘propaganda,’
and how LGBTI groups have been targeted under the ‘foreign agents law’ and routinely
prevented from holding public actions, while unpunished homophobic assaults by vigilante
groups have risen.”).
78 Id. at 8.
79 Id.
80 Id. at 9 (describing how LGBTI rights activists are “often attacked at demonstrations,

pickets, flashmobs, at the offices of LGBTI organizations, in police stations and inside court
buildings were cases of LGBTI activists are being heard, as well as at clubs and bars popular
among the LGBTI community).
81 See id.
2017 FIFA: For the Game or For-Profit? 433

account of race, skin colour, ethnic, national or social origin,

gender, language, religion, political opinion or any other opinion,
wealth, birth or any other status, sexual orientation or any other
reason.82

FIFA’s stated strategy as an organization is to promote humanitarian

values through soccer.83 However, by choosing a country like Russia,
which denies fundamental rights to its own citizens, which FIFA
supposedly vehemently fights for within its own organization through its
own ethical standards, FIFA is actively and implicitly stifling these
freedoms.84 In doing so, it is directly violating not only its mission
statement stating that it actively works to promote humanitarian values,
but is breaching Internal Revenue Code § 501 (c)(4), through which it
claims tax-exemptions as an organization promoting social welfare.85

4. Among myriad other human rights issues, Qatar has been

receiving increased global attention due to their migrant
worker abuses—much of which has been conducted under
the state-sponsored “kafala” system—including
exploitative labor standards, conditions, and legislation

The current human rights violations occurring in Qatar are different

than those seen in South Africa and Brazil, but similar in that they come as
a direct result of Qatar being the host country of the World Cup in 2022.86
Among these types of human rights violations are expensive recruitment
fees, denigrating living conditions, delayed and inaccurate information
about salaries, inability to leave the stadium, camp, or country or change
jobs, threats, and forced labor.87 Many of the workers being asked to help
build stadiums and other infrastructure in Qatar are being brought from
surrounding, impoverished countries such as Nepal, Bangladesh, and
India.88 The people taking these jobs often do so because they want to
provide for their families back home, and eventually bring themselves and

82 FIFA, Code of Ethics, supra note 5, at 20.

83 FIFA, Our strategy, supra note 2.
84 See id.
85 See Reilly, supra note 29, at 25; 26 U.S.C. § 501(providing exemptions from tax for

corporations, certain trusts, etc. and listing exempt organizations); FIFA, Our strategy, supra
note 2.
86 See Amnesty International, Qatar: Promising Little, Delivering Less – Qatar and Migrant

Labour Abuse Ahead of the 2022 Football World Cup, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL (May 20, 2015),
https://perma.cc/WH56-5PRZ.
87 Id.
88 Ben Rumsby, Qatar World Cup Workers ‘Are in a Living Nightmare, THE TELEGRAPH (Apr. 1,

2016), https://perma.cc/QQ6Q-LMGA.
434 New England Law Review Vol. 51|2

their family out of the impoverished conditions. However, they are being
recruited by agents in their home countries who deceive them about the
salaries they will receive while working in Qatar, and hike up the prices of
their recruitment fees.89 These agents take advantage of the workers’
vulnerability and charge them as much as US $4,300 to help them find jobs
in Qatar.90 This often puts the workers deep into debt, which is then further
exploited once they begin working in Qatar.91 In addition to the poor
working conditions, the workers are also placed into living areas which are
often dangerous due to over capacity and/or being extremely filthy and
unsanitary.92 After they begin working, their salaries are often not given to
them in a timely manner, or are significantly less than what they were
promised by the recruiter in the first place.93 This in turn does not allow the
workers to pay for their own food and well-being, send money back home
to their families, or make loan payments on the money they took out to pay
the recruiter.94 When these workers complain, they are often threatened by
the people overseeing their construction jobs.95 Often, these workers are
either threatened that their visas will be taken away and they will be
returned to their home countries, or that they cannot leave the camp or
stadium on which they are working, and thus are forced to stay in the
country and are not able to change employment.96 The lack of safe and
clean conditions for these workers, especially in the heat of Qatar, resulted
in the death of one Nepalese migrant every two days in 2014, with new
reports frequently being released that indicate even higher numbers.97
FIFA’s actions are falling far short of contributing to social welfare
because its finances suggest that it is operating more as a for-profit

89 Id.
90 See id.
91 See Rumsby, supra note 88.
92 Id.
93 Qatar: Promising Little, Delivering Less – Qatar and Migrant Labour Abuse Ahead of the 2022

Football World Cup, supra note 86, at 5.

94 Id.

95 Id.
96 Rumsby, supra note 88.
97 Owen Gibson and Pete Pattisson, Death Toll Among Qatar’s 2022 World Cup Workers
Revealed, THE GUARDIAN (Dec. 23, 2014), https://perma.cc/B54A-XEMS; Wesley Stephenson,
Have 1,200 World Cup Workers Really Died in Qatar?, BBC NEWS (June 6, 2015),
https://perma.cc/93KX-RJL2 (explaining that although the graphic posted by The Washington
Post indicated almost 2,000 migrant worker deaths, the number of migrant worker deaths
may actually be higher, depending on how one does the calculation. It concludes, however,
that the number is neither completely inaccurate nor is it insignificant); Christopher
Ingraham, The Toll of Human Casualties in Qatar, THE WASHINGTON POST (May 27, 2015),
https://perma.cc/56RR-WH2C.
2017 FIFA: For the Game or For-Profit? 435

organization.98 According to Amnesty International, Khalifa Stadium in

Qatar, is being refurbished at a cost of over US $90 million to one
construction firm, and over US $35 million to the main subcontractor, while
the average monthly salary for one person working on the stadium is
around US $220.99 FIFA, however, based on numbers recorded from the
last World Cup in 2014, nets upwards of US $2 billion in revenue at these
events.100
Prior to choosing Qatar as World Cup hosts for 2022, these widespread
human rights issues, and migrant deaths related to Qatar’s construction
boom, were already known.101 FIFA should never have chosen Qatar to
host the World Cup; however, the fact that it has and is still choosing to
ignore, or at least inadequately address, blatant human rights abuses and
violations, is even more troubling.102 FIFA’s financial resources, influence,
and so-called mission to promote humanitarian values, have a global,
moral, and ethical obligation to either contribute more financial resources
to the World Cup, or discontinue benefitting from the tax exemptions it
receives through its status as a § 501(c)(4) organization under the IRC.103

III. FIFA Currently Has More Member-States than the United Nations
and the World Cup is the Most-Watched Event in the World, it Must
Take on More Global Responsibility

A. Although the World Cup is only played for four weeks every four
years, it has a vast impact, on host countries especially, during the
years leading up to it and the years following

In early 2015, John Ruggie, a Harvard professor and the UN Secretary-

General’s special representative for business and human rights, was asked
by FIFA to help develop a plan to address human rights in terms of global

98 See generally FIFA, Financial and Governance Report 2015, supra note 3, at 14-16 (describing

FIFA’s revenue during 2015).

99 Qatar: Promising Little, Delivering Less – Qatar and Migrant Labour Abuse Ahead of the 2022
Football World Cup, supra note 86.
100 Id.
101 Ingraham, supra note 97 (suggesting that while some argue that these deaths have not

been a direct result of the FIFA World Cup, and may be more deep-rooted, the fact that it was
already a problem in Qatar should have been enough to deter FIFA from electing them as
World Cup hosts entirely. “The decision to award the 2022 World Cup to the rich Gulf state
with a deeply problematic human rights record was a controversial one right out of the gate.”)
102 Rumsby, supra note 88.
103 See FIFA, Our Strategy, supra note 2.; See Reilly, supra note 29; 26 U.S.C.A.§ 501(c)(4)
(West 2015).
436 New England Law Review Vol. 51|2

sports.104 Despite the fact that Professor Ruggie did come back with a
recommended plan for FIFA, it is not set to go into effect until the 2026
World Cup.105 Despite the decade of revamping in terms of these
principles, it has also been noted further that implementing many of his
recommendations are naturally going to be a lengthy process, meaning that
it will take even longer to see substantial and significant change in the way
FIFA addresses and allows for human rights violations to take place as a
direct result of the World Cup and its demands.106

IV. FIFA Must Take On More of a Moral or a Financial Responsibility

A. In Order to Fulfill the Obligations of Its Tax-Exempt Status, FIFA

Needs to Take on More of a Moral Responsibility with Its World Cup

According to the IRS, there are certain regulations barring social and
recreational activities from qualifying as a § 501(c)(4) organization for
purposes of being tax-exempt, unless it can clearly show that it is
addressing social welfare concerns.107 In determining whether an
organization in this position is actually making a genuine effort to comply
with this exception, its actions, considered with regard to the totality of the
circumstances, should substantially outweigh its stated objectives and
overall mission as they stand on paper.108 FIFA claims that its overall
mission is to utilize and improve the game of soccer in order to take
advantage of its various unifying qualities.109 Sports in general, but soccer
in particular, have been shown to possess the ability to unite and inspire in
ways that transcend social, economic, and political barriers, on a global
scale.110 Despite a large number of negative events that have also transpired
during both large- and small-scale soccer events,111 the response to soccer

104 New Delhi Times Bureau, FIFA’s Plan to Adopt UN’s Guiding Principles on Human Rights

Could be a Pioneer in Global Sports (January 1, 2016), https://perma.cc/SX3E-VLJM.

105 Id.
106 See Id.
107 Reilly, supra note 29, at 27.
108 Id.
109 See FIFA, Our Strategy, supra note 2.
110 See Rob Hughes, Nelson Mandela Grasped the Power of Sports, NEW YORK TIMES (June 11,
2013), https://perma.cc/J7VC-8ACR; see also Natalie Hopkinson, A Passion for Soccer Helps Unite
One of the World’s Most Diverse Countries, WASHINGTON POST (Jan. 28, 2016),
https://perma.cc/Y5BG-7ZNE; Simon Robinson, Blessed are Peacemakers: It’s World Cup Time
Again!, TIME (Dec. 9, 2015), https://perma.cc/TUM9-HFWT; David Bond, How Nelson Mandela
Used Sport to Transform South Africa’s Image, BBC SPORT (Dec. 6, 2013), https://perma.cc/T7EV-
BANX.
111 See e.g., Donna Bowater, Brazilian Referee Beheaded and Quartered After Stabbing Player He

Sent Off, THE TELEGRAPH (July 7, 2013), 4:05 PM BST), https://perma.cc/5PDX-US3M

2017 FIFA: For the Game or For-Profit? 437

in all forms—including women’s soccer, English and Spanish leagues, and

the World Cup—have been, for the most part, overwhelmingly positive.112
According to the IRS, organizations that are exempt under IRC §
501(c)(4) are not subject to any specific organizational or operational test in
order to qualify as exempt.113 In fact, organizations under this rule “are
generally allowed greater latitude” than organizations applying for an
exemption under § 501(c)(3).114 Although there is not a specific test, as there
is for those organizations under IRC § 501(c)(3), it is understood that the
general test “looks to the organization’s primary activities” which allows
an organization exempt under IRC § 501(c)(4) to “engage in substantial
non-exempt activities.”115 However, the IRS goes on to explain that “[a]n
organization is not operated for the promotion of social welfare if its
primary activity is carrying on a business with the general public in a
manner similar to organizations operated for profit.”116 According to
FIFA’s finance reports, for the 2015 financial year, its total revenue was US
$1.15 billion.117 Additionally, its expenses for the same year were US $1.27
billion, but despite its statement that 74% of its overall expenditures were
invested directly in soccer—implying that it was invested in furtherance of
their humanitarian efforts according to their mission statement—the
breakdown of its expenses falls far short of contributing to social welfare.118
Of the US $1.27 billion, FIFA spent US $781 million on the various World
Cup competitions it hosts (the Women’s World Cup, U-20 World Cup,
Beach Soccer World Cup, etc.), with US $574 million of the US $781 million
(almost 74%) spent directly on Russia’s 2018 World Cup.119 For comparison,

(describing how a referee in Brazil was attacked by an angry mob of fans in response to his
stabbing a player who refused to leave the field after being sent off); see also The Associated
Press, Russia and England Fans Clash Repeatedly at European Championships, NEW YORK TIMES
(June 11, 2016), https://perma.cc/5ZTR-RY87 (one example of riots that sometimes break out
between fans of countries playing each other in high stake matches during large-scale
tournaments like the European Championship and the World Cup); Ian Lee and Laura Smith-
Spark, Report: 11 Sentenced to Death Over Fatal Port Said Soccer Riots in Egypt, CNN (June 9,
2015, 4:16 PM GMT), https://perma.cc/Y3ED-QE4R (“An Egyptian court sentenced 11 men to
death . . . for their involvement in the worst soccer violence in Egypt’s history.”).
112 See e.g., Bill Chappell, U.S. Women Shatter TV Ratings Record For Soccer With World Cup
Win, NPR (July 6, 2015), https://perma.cc/BU6P-ECPT (“[The 2015 Women’s World Cup was]
the highest metered market rating ever for a soccer game in the U.S. on a single network”).
113 Reilly, supra note 29, at 25.
114 Id.
115 Id.
116 Id.
117 FIFA, Financial and Governance Report 2015, supra note 3.
118 See id.
119 Id.
438 New England Law Review Vol. 51|2

FIFA also spent 74% of its expenditures on the 2014 FIFA World Cup in
Brazil in the 2013 financial year.120 Further, FIFA states that it spent a total
of US $161 million on development projects, intended to contribute to
advancing soccer worldwide, but compared to the fact that it spent US $190
million on personnel expenses and other “operating expenses” and US $95
million on internal committee organization and legal matters (US $285
million total), its development of soccer is clearly less of a priority.121 If it is
spending almost three-fourths of its expenditure on World Cups that
implicitly condone human rights abuses, FIFA’s primary activities of
contributing to the development of soccer is much more focused on turning
a profit in the World Cup, and therefore it is carrying on a business in a
manner much more similar to for-profit organizations.122
On its face, it appears that FIFA spending almost US $600 million on
the World Cup is enough to meet the requirement of advancing
humanitarian efforts through soccer, given that this event generally acts as
a way to bring nations together.123 However, based on reports from the
2014 World Cup, FIFA made US $4.8 billion in revenue, after spending
only a total of US $2.22 billion.124 Although the host countries’ expenditures
vary from country to country, it is generally a multi-billion dollar
endeavor—South Africa spent US $3 billion,125 Brazil spent US $15
billion,126 Russia currently has a budget of almost US $11 billion,127 and
Qatar is currently spending almost US $500 million a week for a total
budget of US $200 billion128—with the majority of the event’s revenue

120 FIFA, Financial and Governance Report 2013, 64th FIFA CONGRESS (June 10–11, 2014),
https://perma.cc/T7KY-6A9Y.
121 See FIFA, Financial and Governance Report 2015, supra note 3.
122 Id.
123 See Santiago Halty, A Cup Half Full: The Social Impact of the World Cup, THE HUFFINGTON

POST (Feb. 19, 2015), https://perma.cc/QM4G-VGXC (although this article also discusses the
negative impacts of the World Cup, it also states that Soccer “serves as an escape for the harsh
realities at home”, using the civil war in the Ivory Coast and the tsunami in Japan as examples
of how the countries escaped through their participation in the 2006 World Cup and 2011
Women’s World Cup, respectfully.).
124 Tony Manfred, FIFA Made an Insane Amount of Money off of Brazil’s $15 Billion World Cup,

BUSINESS INSIDER (Mar. 20, 2015), https://perma.cc/UQ35-QP6Y.

125 Gerald Imray, South Africa Spent $3 Billion on 2010 World Cup, THE WASHINGTON TIMES

(Nov. 23, 2012), https://perma.cc/B337-YM6W.

126 Manfred, supra note 124.
127 Associated Press, Russia Increases 2018 World Cup Budget by $325 Million, ESPN FC (Feb.
6, 2017), https://perma.cc/WS4L-LZWB.
128 Agence France-Presse, Qatar Spending $500m a Week on World Cup Projects, THE

GUARDIAN (Feb. 7, 2017), https://perma.cc/PVB6-2MY2.

2017 FIFA: For the Game or For-Profit? 439

going directly back to FIFA.129 For the 2014 World Cup, FIFA’s expenses
were predominantly related to TV production, prize money, ticketing,
marketing, insurance, etc., with only US $453 million in contributions to the
Local Organizing Committee of the host country.130
If FIFA wants to continue to reap the billions of dollars in revenue from
its World Cups, while financially contributing comparatively little to the
event, it must take on more of a moral responsibility to promote social
welfare.131 In South Africa and Brazil, FIFA allowed and implicitly
condoned the host countries’ human rights violations.132 In response to
FIFA’s demands to build infrastructure, these countries forcibly evicted
some of their poorest citizens, and built stadiums (which for the most part
immediately fell into disuse and disrepair) in place of previously-existing
communities.133 FIFA has been unable and unwilling to take the initiative
to act in accordance with its own Code of Ethics and use its influence as the
World Cup’s primary organizer to enforce the host country’s compliance
with basic human rights and fundamental freedoms. This omission shows
that the organization’s primary activities are less focused on advancing
humanitarian efforts through soccer and the World Cup, and more about
turning a profit and increasing the amount of revenue that the organization
receives from the event—as a for-profit corporation would.134 FIFA acting
more like a corporation, without prioritizing—and sometimes blatantly
disregarding—basic human rights, is problematic in that it not only
violates the organization’s own Code of Ethics, but in doing so allows the
organization to boost its own financial resources and cut corners with the
IRS under the guise of moral responsibility and humanitarianism.135
It is more important for FIFA to stick to its mission statement and
actually effect change, and to begin taking steps that actually align with its
Code of Ethics.136 While the guidelines suggested by Professor Ruggie are
certainly a giant step in the right direction, they are currently acting as just
another way for FIFA to claim moral responsibility but fail to act

129 See Manfred, supra note 124.

130 Id.
131 See generally Reilly, supra note 29 (describing social welfare in organizations which

provide for the public).

132 Raghavan, supra note 43; see Wilson, supra note 14; see also Smith, supra note 39.
133 Smith, supra note 39; South Africa: Human Rights Concerns During the World Cup, supra
note 35; Raghavan, supra note 43.
134 Reilly, supra note 29, at I-3, I-25.
135 See generally FIFA, Financial and Governance Report 2015, supra note 3; Reilly, supra note
29, at I-25; FIFA, Our Strategy, supra note 2.
136 See FIFA, Our Strategy, supra note 2.
440 New England Law Review Vol. 51|2

accordingly.137 These guidelines are not set to take effect until the 2026
World Cup, and even then many of the guidelines will take an extra few
years before starting to noticeably make a difference.138 By 2026, two more
World Cups will have come and gone, and another host country will
already be preparing for their World Cup.139 FIFA must take more of a
moral responsibility immediately, starting with the 2018 World Cup in
Russia, and the 2022 World Cup in Qatar.140 By allowing countries like
Russia to host the World Cup in spite of the fact that the government
endorses and proposes new legislation that directly contradicts not only
what FIFA itself stands for, but also what many of the participating
countries and viewers value, FIFA has failed to live up to its moral and
legal obligation of promoting social welfare.141 While it is not necessary to
revoke the World Cup, it is necessary to exert its influence as the governing
organization of the event to ensure that those who partake in the World
Cup are protected, valued, and secure in their fundamental rights and
freedoms.142 FIFA owes the World Cup—the host country, participating
countries, and viewers worldwide—at the very least, actions that match up
with its stated purpose as an IRC § 501(c)(4) organization to promote social
welfare.143

B. If FIFA Does Not Take on More of a Moral Responsibility—FIFA

Needs to Make More of a Financial Contribution to the Host
Country of the World Cup

1. Based on its budget – FIFA must contribute to social

welfare, rather than its own organization

It is vital that FIFA ensures that its actions are more aligned with
humanitarian values for the sake of social welfare worldwide; however, for
the purposes of its status as an IRC § 501(c)(4) organization, if FIFA fails to

137 FIFA’s Plan to Adopt UN’s Guiding Principles on Human Rights Could be a Pioneer in Global
Sports, supra note 104.
138 Id.
139 Martin Belam, The 2026 World Cup Will be in the USA. And Here’s Why…, Mirror (July 3,

2014), https://perma.cc/SZU7-FRRR.
140 See generally Amnesty International, supra note 63; Amnesty International, supra note 86.
141 See, e.g., Smith, supra note 39; South Africa: Human Rights Concerns During the World Cup,
supra note 35; Raghavan, supra note 43; Amnesty International, supra note 63; Amnesty
International, supra note 86.
142 See generallyViolation of the Right to Freedom of Expression, Association and Assembly in
Russia, supra note 63; Qatar: Promising Little, Delivering Less – Qatar and Migrant Labour Abuse
Ahead of the 2022 Football World Cup, supra note 86.
143 See Reilly, supra note 29.
2017 FIFA: For the Game or For-Profit? 441

do so, it needs to make more of a financial contribution to events and

activities that will promote social welfare.144 At the time of this writing,
FIFA’s finances indicate that it is spending more on personnel and internal
organization costs than development programs, and even more than both
of those categories combined on the World Cup.145 Within its expenses on
the World Cup, the majority is spent in categories designed to earn more
revenue for the organization, rather than helping the host country.146 In
order to prove that its primary activities as an organization are to
contribute to social welfare rather than to make a profit, FIFA should
increase its budget for how much it gives to the Local Organizing
Committee of the host country.147 This would help shift its budget from
indicating that it cares more about how much money the organization itself
can earn, to indicating that it is invested in ensuring that it is committed to
“promot[ing] the game of football, protect[ing] its integrity and bring[ing]
the game to all [including by] . . . better engag[ing] all members of the
football community regardless of gender, orientation, creed or ethnicity”
according to its vision statement.148
Because the various host countries of the World Cup have drastically
different budgets, requiring FIFA to make a specific contribution would be
arbitrary and ineffective.149 However, FIFA’s current budget structure
undermines the purpose of having tax-exempt organizations for the
purposes of IRC § 501(c)(4).150 If FIFA can align its actions and finances
with its stated mission and primary objective, it will be much more
convincing that it is worthy of being a § 501(c)(4) organization.151
FIFA’s actions and inactions have not fully comported with either its
stated mission statements or with the IRS’s exception for social and
recreational organizations in order to qualify as “tax-exempt” under IRC §
501(c)(4).152 The 2010 World Cup was a stark example of FIFA blatantly
turning a blind eye to human rights concerns that were created and
exacerbated solely by the World Cup.153 For example, the Tin Can Town in
South Africa was just one instance where a community was forcibly

144 See id.

145 FIFA, Financial and Governance Report 2015, supra note 3.
146 See Manfred, supra note 124.
147 FIFA, Financial and Governance Report 2015, supra note 3.
148 Reilly, supra note 29; FIFA, Our Strategy, supra note 2.
149 See FIFA, Financial and Governance Report 2015, supra note 3.
150 Reilly, supra note 29.
151 Id.
152 Id. at 27.
153 South Africa: Human Rights Concerns During the World Cup, supra note 35; Smith, supra
note 39; Raghavan, supra note 43.
442 New England Law Review Vol. 51|2

removed from their homes, neighborhoods, and cities in order to build

infrastructure for the World Cup.154 Although some infrastructure would
benefit the country in the long-run (transportation systems, airports, etc.),
much of the construction that took place—and where a large portion of the
host country’s budget went—was to building stadiums.155
It is clear that FIFA blatantly disregarded these abuses in South Africa
because four years later, Brazil was faced with a similar lack of reliable
infrastructure and stadiums and again turned to forced evictions of the
country’s most vulnerable citizens living in the favelas.156 Instead of
utilizing its multi-billion dollar resources to help with basic costs of hosting
a World Cup, FIFA shifted the vast majority of these costs onto Brazil’s
government to not only improve their transportation systems and airports,
but also to build brand new multi-million dollar stadiums, which for the
most part would only be used for the tournament.157 In both South Africa
and Brazil, these stadiums were undoubtedly crucial to the event itself, but
after the four-week tournament came to a close, they fell largely into disuse
and disrepair, despite permanently occupying what was once a
neighborhood and community of people.158 The FIFA organization did not
address these concerns in a way that showed it cared more about the
humans being affected by the World Cup through horrific human rights
violations perpetrated by their own governments than it did about making
a profit.159 Although it is not as beneficial to promoting social welfare as
increasing its moral obligations, FIFA can take steps in the right direction
by contributing more of its budget to the Local Organising Committee with
the intent that they will utilize the funds to protect their citizens while
preparing for the World Cup.160
In order to comply with these clear standards set forth by the IRS, FIFA
must increase its initiatives and responses to address the humanitarian and
global human rights concerns that are being jeopardized as a direct result
of the World Cup.161 One way for it to do so is to increase the financial

154 See South Africa: Human Rights Concerns During the World Cup, supra note 35; Smith, supra

note 39; Raghavan, supra note 43.

155 See Imray, supra note 125.
156 Somin, supra note 52; Petrowski, supra note 58; Wilson, supra note 14.
157 See Bruce Douglas, World Cup Leaves Brazil with Bus Depots and Empty Stadiums, BBC
SPORT (Mar. 29, 2015), https://perma.cc/H8FJ-ZDVY; James Young, South Africa, Brazil World
Cup Stadia Largely Remain National Burdens, SPORTS ILLUSTRATED (Feb. 2, 2015),
https://perma.cc/ZB9R-DNBW.
158 See Quinton Fortune, South Africa Spent £2.4bn to Host the 2010 World Cup. What Happened

Next?, THE GUARDIAN (Sept. 23, 2014), https://perma.cc/9ZP4-7DMD; Young, supra note 158.
159 See generally Petrowski, supra note 58; Somin, supra note 52; Wilson, supra note 14.
160 See FIFA, Financial and Governance Report 2015, supra note 3.
161 See Arnal Dayaratna, FIFA’s Responsibility to World Cup Host Nations, HUFFINGTON POST
2017 FIFA: For the Game or For-Profit? 443

contributions to the country hosting a World Cup event.162 Compared to

the demands FIFA makes of the host country, its current contributions, as
well as the way it currently allocates its funds, are disproportionate and
detrimental to local communities and citizens being affected most by the
World Cup.163 If FIFA wants to utilize soccer and the World Cup to further
the unifying and humanitarian qualities that the sport has to offer, it needs
to take social cost into account when budgeting for the World Cup, because
the negative impact the World Cup currently leaves, by shining a light on
the human rights issues, contradicts its stated mission.164

V. Revocation of Tax-Exempt Status

A. If FIFA Declines to Take on More Financial Responsibility to

Address Human Rights Violations, Its Tax-Exempt Status Should Be
Stripped Because It is Not complying With Its Stated Purpose165

1. FIFA must either hold themselves accountable, or be held

accountable by the IRS

For decades, the National Football League (“NFL”) was classified as a

tax-exempt organization under IRC § 501(c)(6).166 However, recently, the

(Aug. 20, 2014), https://perma.cc/56GM-NHP2. See generally New Delhi Times Bureau, supra
note 104 (describing how FIFA began to take more of an initiative by asking Professor Ruggie
to develop guidelines to follow in response to the increasing need to address human rights
concerns).
162 See Azadeh Erfani, Kicking Away Responsibility: FIFA’s Role in Response to Migrant Worker

Abuses in Qatar’s 2022 World Cup, 22 JEFFREY S. MOORAD SPORTS L.J. 623 (2015); Jules Boykoff
&Alan Tomlinson, After the World Cup Final, This is How to Stop FIFA From Being Such a
Parasite, THE GUARDIAN (July 13, 2014), https://perma.cc/ZY62-WHYT; Andrew Brennan, The
Olympics, Just Like FIFA And Its Lauded World Cup, Are A Money Racket And Need Reform,
FORBES (Aug. 31, 2016), https://perma.cc/AX55-YWQL; Shaun Webb, The World Cup: How FIFA
Benefits While Host Countries Lose Big, TRIPLE PUNDIT (Nov. 17, 2011), https://perma.cc/ZBD9-
KYGA.
163 See Isabelle Fraser, Fifa’s Finances – Where Does All the Money Come From?, THE

TELEGRAPH (May 29, 2015), May 29, 2015, 3:14 PM BST), https://perma.cc/KRD7-8EHL; Paul
Sargeant, How Fifa Makes and Spends its Money, BBC NEWS (May 29, 2015),
https://perma.cc/WU4X-YAC9.
164 See Erfani, supra note 162; Boykoff & Tomlinson, supra note 162; Brennan, supra note
162; Webb, supra note 162.
165 Reilly, supra note 29; FIFA, Our Strategy, supra note 2 (stating that its vision is to

“promote the game of football, protect its integrity and bring the game to all [including by] . . .
better engag[ing] all members of the football community regardless of gender, orientation,
creed or ethnicity”).
166 Joe Pinsker, Why the NFL Decided to Start Paying Taxes, THE ATLANTIC (Apr. 28, 2015),
https://perma.cc/A9BT-QUF8; Brent Schrotenboer, NFL Drops Tax-Exempt Status to Avoid
‘Distraction’, USA TODAY SPORTS (Apr. 28, 2015, 1:35 PM ET) https://perma.cc/3LX7-YEQA.
444 New England Law Review Vol. 51|2

NFL decided to remove itself from this exemption and increase the amount
of taxes it pays in response to a great deal of criticism for being tax-
exempt.167 It is well known that FIFA has faced a great deal of corruption
scandals and backlash for the way it has utilized its funds,168 however,
FIFA has still not done enough to address the growing human rights
concerns surrounding the World Cup.169 FIFA should ensure that its
requirements and demands for hosting the World Cup are met by the host
country in terms of building required infrastructure in a way that takes
into account not just the cost of building state-of-the-art stadiums, but the
social cost of doing so as well.170 If FIFA cannot or refuses to make more of
a moral or a financial contribution to promoting the social welfare and
humanitarian values it claims to in its mission statement, FIFA should no
longer be eligible for tax-exempt status under IRC § 501(c)(4).171 Like the
NFL, FIFA should respond by taking the initiative and discontinuing its
request for tax-exempt status or its status should be directly denied by the
IRS.172
While it is crucial that FIFA stop disproportionately reaping the
benefits of its tax-exempt status, as a matter of public policy, it would be
better “for the game and for the world” (as FIFA’s tagline states), if FIFA
were to increase its moral obligation and responsibility a host of the
World’s largest tournament.173 FIFA and the World Cup have the
opportunity to make a lasting, positive impact because soccer has the
power to unify individual communities, nations, and the global
community.174 It is imperative that FIFA be held accountable for acting in

167 Pinsker, supra note 166; Schrotenboer, supra note 166.

168 See, e.g., Rebecca R. Ruiz, Matt Apuzzo, & Sam Borden, FIFA Corruption: Top Officials
Arrested in Pre-Dawn Raid at Zurich Hotel, NEW YORK TIMES (Dec. 3, 2015),
https://perma.cc/C67G-DW9B; Fifa Corruption Crisis: Key Questions Answered, BBC NEWS (Dec.
21, 2015), https://perma.cc/KXT8-T734. See generally Ali Eghbal, Enough is Enough: FIFA Must
Incorporate Principles from the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 to Combat Ongoing Executive
Committee Corruption, 22 SW. J. INT’L L. 385 (2016) (providing a background on the corrupt
practices of executive committee members, and FIFA’s lack of initiative in holding them
responsible).
169 See, e.g., Five Years of Human Rights Failure Shames FIFA and Qatar, AMNESTY

INTERNATIONAL (Dec. 1, 2015), https://perma.cc/RND7-YKA6. See also Editorial Board, FIFA

Deserves a Red Card for Not Doing More on Human Rights in Qatar, WASHINGTON POST (June 12,
2014), https://perma.cc/4C6J-3N8Y. See generally Erfani, supra note 162.
170 See Erfani, supra note 162 at 632-33.
171 See 26 U.S.C § 501(c)(4)(A) (2012. See also Reilly, supra note 29.
172 See Pinsker, supra note 166; Schrotenboer, supra note 166.
173 See FIFA, For the Game. For the World: New FIFA Slogan Brings Social Responsibility to the
Fore, About FIFA: Media Release, https://perma.cc/2VY5-ZQWW.
174 See Hopkinson, supra note 110.
2017 FIFA: For the Game or For-Profit? 445

accordance with its mission statement, as well as its legal, moral, and
ethical obligation to promote social welfare.175

CONCLUSION

Internal Revenue Code § 501(c)(4) allows for certain non-profit

organizations (such as FIFA) to qualify for tax exemptions. According to
the code, these organizations’ primary activities must be for the promotion
of social welfare. FIFA states that its mission is to promote humanitarian
values through soccer’s unifying qualities, and therefore it deserves these
tax exemptions. However, in addition to major corruption scandals in
recent years, FIFA has also played a role in allowing for major abuses of
human rights and denials of fundamental freedoms. These abuses have
taken many forms, including migrant labor abuse – utilizing laborers from
neighboring, vulnerable countries and paying the lowest wages (if any at
all), and forced evictions of entire communities, in order to get stadiums
and other infrastructure up and running as quickly as possible. In spite of
this, FIFA has continued to fail to act and/or choose host countries who
carry out these violations and other wrongdoings. Further, FIFA’s budget
demonstrates that it spends the majority of its revenue and expenditures
on activities designed to earn it more money, and therefore it is operating
more like a for-profit organization. Because its business model functions
this way, FIFA must act on its mission statement by either taking on more
of a moral or financial responsibility. If it is unable to do so, its status as a
tax-exempt, non-profit organization under IRC § 501(c)(4) must be
revoked.

175 See Reilly, supra note 29.