Saudi Arabia, Qatar and a 2026 FIFA World Cup qualifying controversy

Forty seconds were remaining in the final group match of round four in the Asian section of World Cup qualifying when Hasan Abdulkareem fired his free kick towards goal.

From 35 yards out, it was a hope and a prayer rather than a definitive opportunity, but as it cleared the Saudi Arabian wall and began to dip, Iraqi football began to rise. In goal, Nawaf Al-Aqidi took a half-step to his right and dived.

Iraq have reached the FIFA World Cup just once, in 1986. Over almost 40 years of near-misses, they have missed out on qualification in play-offs, by two points and through suspension. Another disappointment was coming. Al-Adiqi stretched two fists to the ball and was able to deflect it behind, leaving Abdulkareem burying his head in his palms.

The 0-0 draw in Jeddah two weeks ago sent Saudi Arabia through to the finals in North America next June and July, qualifying on goals scored. Iraq would have to play a two-legged AFC play-off next month for the right to advance to a global six-nation repechage in March.

Their opponents in that play-off were discovered on the same day, 1,000 miles across the Arabian peninsula in Doha, Qatar.

In its successful bid to host the 2022 World Cup, one of Qatar’s major pitches was the safety of fans in the country. But here, with Qatar having defeated the United Arab Emirates 2-1, overtaking them to qualify directly and sending their opponents into that meeting with Iraq, travelling Emirati supporters were rioting across the stands. Frustration at the loss drove the unprecedented scenes, with fans dressed in bishts even rushing the pitch, but another controversy fired their anger.

In both games, the team that qualified had home advantage — in a round that, according to the original structure, should have been played at neutral venues throughout. On top of that, both home sides had profited from an extra three-day rest over their opponents.

With Qatar and Saudi Arabia also having won bids to host a World Cup, Iraqi and Emirati fans cried foul, feeling the qualification process had been skewed against them.

“I’ve worked for 40 years in football, and this is not fair play,” Oman coach Carlos Queiroz also said in a pre-match press conference. “As a coach, I’ll have to accept that and my players have to accept that too.”

Here, The Athletic explains what happened.

How does the Asian section of World Cup qualifying work?

Asian Football Confederation (AFC) qualifying for the World Cup is entered by 46 teams of massively varying ability who compete for eight automatic spots.

In round one, the 20 Asian nations with the lowest FIFA world ranking positions play each other in two-legged eliminators, knocking out 10 countries straight away.

The 10 winners join the remaining 26 teams in round two, where nine groups of four teams play each other home and away. The top two sides in each group progress, the bottom two are out.

Round three is the first opportunity to secure qualification. The 18 sides still standing are divided into three groups of six, again playing matches home and away, with the top two sides from each section after 10 games gaining automatic spots at the World Cup. Iran, Uzbekistan, South Korea, Jordan, Australia and Japan are the countries who secured their involvement next summer at the end of this phase.

That still left two automatic AFC qualifying spots up for grabs.

The fifth- and sixth-placed teams from the round three groups are eliminated, but the third- and fourth-place finishers (six sides in total) move on to round four. In two groups of three, a round-robin mini-tournament is played, with the sides who come first punching their tickets to North America.

The two second-place sides from round four then meet in a two-leg play-off, with the winners going into one of two inter-confederation three-team single-leg play-off brackets in March (also involving one country each from Africa, Oceania and South America plus two from North and Central America and the Caribbean, the final tournament’s host federation) where the last two slots in the World Cup’s 48-strong field will be decided.

What do other teams think is unfair?

Pretty much everything about round four.

Saudi Arabia and Qatar were given hosting rights for all three matches in their respective groups in relatively opaque circumstances, despite teams having been told earlier in the qualifying process that this round would take place at a neutral venue.

According to the FIFA handbook regulations, which govern qualification options, the accepted format was a “single round-robin format in which each team in a group plays all other teams in their group once, with the venues either drawn at random or assigned by the confederation with the agreement of the playing association”. The venues were not drawn at random, nor seemingly assigned by agreement, given the public complaints from Football Associations involved.

Though sides in the region accepted that Saudi Arabia, which will stage the 2034 World Cup, and Qatar, the tournament’s hosts three years ago, had the best facilities, by a distance, the coaches of their opponents questioned why both countries were allowed to play their fourth round matches at home.

“When you play these kinds of tournaments, all teams should have an equal chance,” said UAE coach Cosmin Olaroiu after his side’s decisive loss to Qatar in Doha. “It was very simple. This group should be playing in Saudi, and that group should play here. That way, everybody would have an equal chance. Nobody would play a home game in front of their fans, and take 80 to 90 per cent of the tickets.

“In the beginning of the competition, they said that third place (in round three) will host the group. We reached third place, and we played away because it was decided like this. And they (the AFC) decide who plays first, who plays third, and everything.”

As well as the venues, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, as top-seeded teams, received favourable match timings.

Why were they the top seeds? The AFC and FIFA appear to give different reasoning, with the AFC stating during the draw that it was because those two nations were the highest in the world rankings, while the game’s global governing body explained on its own website that it was because they were host nations, to keep them apart.

The latter raises further questions about the scale of the advantage gained by Saudi Arabia and Qatar from having home matches.

Even before the draw took place, the AFC had announced that the top seeds would play their two matches on October 8 and October 14, with the remaining two sides in their group playing each other on October 11.

In practice, it meant that Saudi Arabia and Qatar had six days rest, but Oman, UAE, Indonesia and Iraq played with just a three-day break. In a round-robin competition, with just three games in each group, coaches said being forced to play twice in 72 hours was a major disadvantage.

As an example, Qatar made two changes for the UAE game after their 0-0 draw with Oman. Their opponents, having beaten Oman 2-1 three days later, made six.

Emirati fans were also upset at their ticket allocation — according to local media, they were awarded just eight per cent of the seats for the fixture in Doha, having received 33 per cent for their opening game against Oman in the same stadium.

“The best way to deal with this competition was to have four days between the games,” added UAE coach Olaroiu. “Four days would be enough for the players to recover.”

Graham Arnold began AFC qualifying as Australia manager before resigning in September 2024 after a succession of poor results. He was subsequently appointed as Iraq’s head coach in May.

“I’m extremely proud of the boys, especially after the way the format of the competition has been,” Arnold said in a press conference after the 0-0 draw with Saudi Arabia that clinched qualification. “I’ve never seen anything in my coaching career with this type of format. When I was with Australia, we were all told these play-offs would be at a neutral venue.

“It’s no coincidence that the team in each group with the six-day break qualified.”

How did the bidding for hosting rights work?

Kuala Lumpur’s Mandarin Oriental is a five-star hotel overlooking the Malaysian capital’s famous Petronas Towers. It boasts 10 restaurants, tennis courts, and an infinity pool. In June this year, it was the venue for the draw for the fourth round of Asian qualifying for the 2026 World Cup.

Just days before, the AFC had unilaterally announced the round-four hosts with a brief statement. Indonesia, the UAE and Iraq all also submitted bids themselves, with Oman expressing interest, too. “The Asian Football Confederation (AFC) has confirmed the Qatar Football Association and the Saudi Arabian Football Federation as the host member associations for the upcoming AFC qualifiers – Road to 26 Playoffs,” the release read.

That week, Iraq and Indonesia had called for “neutrality and transparency” in the bidding process, but no selection criteria were announced alongside the AFC’s statement.

Further details only emerged courtesy of Iraq’s FA, which, in attempting to quell rumours that it had not officially submitted its own hosting bid, released a letter sent from the AFC to federations containing information not in the press release.

The AFC’s letter called Saudi Arabia and Qatar “impeccable hosts”, and points to the countries’ experience in hosting FIFA events and AFC Champions League finals, stating they had “world-class infrastructure, event experience, and logistical readiness”.

It also outlined several criteria required by host associations, but made no reference to how highly the other bids had scored, nor did it mention why two of the six competing sides would now have home advantage.

At the draw itself, it appeared set that Saudi Arabia and Qatar would play home matches. It was not announced before the draw that Qatar, for example, would host Group A and Saudi Arabia Group B, with both teams then liable to play in either pool, depending on where they were drawn.

Instead, with Qatar’s name drawn out first, AFC deputy general secretary Shin Man Gil simply stated: “Qatar, hosting Group A”.

Unlike several other AFC-organised competitions, the confederation has not published the qualifying regulations on its website, making it difficult to receive immediate clarification on these questions.

How dominant are Saudi Arabia and Qatar in the AFC?

Despite the vast size of the world’s largest continent, with its regional powerhouses of Japan and South Korea (Far East) and Iran (Middle East), influence within the AFC’s governing structure increasingly orbits around the Gulf states.

The president, Sheikh Salman bin Ibrahim Al Khalifa, is Bahraini (a nation that is a close ally of Saudi Arabia), while the senior vice-president, Yasser Al Misehal is Saudi, as is the finance committee chair, Adel Ezzat. Competitions committee chair Hani Ballan is Qatari. In addition, the vast majority of financial support comes from Gulf companies, including the Qatari-owned beIN Media Group, Qatar Airways and QatarEnergy, and Saudi-owned Aramco.

AFC events have been focused on the region — the federation’s award ceremony is presented by NEOM, the supercity in the Saudi desert that forms a core part of Vision 2030, while the AFC’s most recent presidents’ and general secretaries’ conference took place in Riyadh, the Saudi capital.

Saudi Arabia will also host the climax of this season’s AFC Champions League knockout phase, from the quarter-finals onwards, next April.

Officials at several other AFC nations, speaking anonymously to discuss issues candidly, told The Athletic that they were increasingly concerned over the levels of Gulf power within the Asian confederation.

What does the AFC say?

Owing to the lack of publicly available information about the qualification process, The Athletic sent the AFC several questions for clarification. These included:

Whether the AFC could publicly share the criteria and bid scores for the qualification hosting rights

Why Saudi Arabia and Qatar were permitted to play at home, rather than at a neutral venue

The circumstances under which Saudi Arabia and Qatar were both named top seeds

How the match schedule for round four of AFC qualification was decided

Why Emirati fans received a reduced ticket allocation for their fixture against Qatar

Whether the AFC could provide The Athletic with a copy of the full qualifying regulations.

The AFC did not respond.

With qualifying also taking place as part of a FIFA tournament, The Athletic asked the sport’s world governing body whether it had sanctioned the circumstances that provided Saudi Arabia and Qatar with such an apparent benefit through home advantage and more rest days.

FIFA did not comment.

Click here to read article