Rankings based on 20 indicators from the official FWC26 Human Rights Framework across three pillars. Scores submitted by community stakeholders using standardized methods. Published by the Center for Community Health Innovation at Georgetown Law's O'Neill Institute in collaboration with the Dignity 2026 coalition.
| # | City | View | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Loading scorecard data... | |||||||||
Everything you need to know about what we're measuring, why, and who we're trying to reach.
The table shows a live ranking of each tournament Host City and their overall points. Click on a host city in the table to see their point breakdown on individual issues. Scroll to the bottom of the individual scorecard and click 'rationale' to see why cities received the scores they received.
A tool to holistically grade and evaluate each host city and host city committee on their upholding of FIFA's human rights standards and protect workers, fans, and community members.
As the tournament begins: to put host cities "on notice" that their action plans, responses, and policies will be scrutinized and that their leaders will be held accountable. The scorecard is meant to be an accountability mechanism for community stakeholders.
We aim to reach a wide audience with this scorecard. This includes, but is not limited to:
How host cities are evaluated across 106 possible points.
The FIFA Human Rights Framework given to host cities contains 20 indicators for host cities to address. They receive up to 5 points for their performance in upholding the 20 indicators.
6 bonus points are for 3 indicators that the scorers have decided are not sufficiently addressed in the Framework, but should still be confronted by cities anyways. Cities may receive a maximum 2 points for each.
Under guidance of FIFA, host city committees were expected to submit and publish human rights action plans (HRAPs) that demonstrate their plans to adhere to the standard of the Framework and protect human rights during the tournament.
Just like in soccer leagues around the world, cities will be deducted points for breaking the rules: if HRAPs are not published on time or at all, were not created with community stakeholder input, or lack serious implementation plans, cities can lose up to 25 points.
Submitting a strong action plan with ample time for review should be the bare minimum. Therefore, cities will only lose points for their performance on these indicators.
A series of rubrics for scoring each of the categories were sent to community stakeholders in each of the host cities. They returned to us with their scores and reasoning for these scores, which are provided within the scorecard.
By using this system, we aim to make the scorecard a community-driven, on the ground exercise. The rubric system allows us to maintain consistency in scoring across host cities.
Per-indicator rationale submitted by community stakeholders and verified by the O'Neill Institute. Select a city, then click any indicator to view its rationale.