Because FIFA doesn't have sovereign immunity. Sue them - FIFA probably wins, but perhaps they pay less to settle.
Somewhere in the contracts Qatar must have signed to get the World Cup, there's got to be language giving FIFA the ability to pull the WC over things like worker safety.
They can't force Qatar to do anything, but they can say do X or no World Cup, so they have leverage. They're also the easiest actor to sue here.
And indeed they've been known to use that leverage on more than one host, particularly in regards to alcohol sales, in light of who their sponsors are.
Interesting to me that the Dutch Federation of Trade Unions (FNV) is behind the suit. I hate FIFA, and as I understand them Qatar's labor laws strike me as damn near modern slavery. That said, the legal basis for this suit is a huge stretch. As I understand it, the argument is that FIFA is at fault for failing to use its influence to force Qatar to alter its labor laws. But... --How do you prove FIFA did or did not use influence? --Failing to act is always a tougher argument than acting badly. Is there an obligation for FIFA to act? --Even if FIFA acts, it has no control over what Qatar does with its laws --And why is this suit in Zurich again? My guess is that this isn't about monetary settlement, and it isn't about the merits of the case. This is about using a law suit related to the World Cup to shine a light on Qatar's atrocious labor practices. I think it's telling that it was the FNV who informed the Reuters reporter that it's going to take over a year of this lawsuit in the press before there is any sort of judgment on the legal merits of the case. This is a nuisance law suit for a noble cause.
Does the FNV have any competing economic interests? I was wondering if it was about port management but that's Dubai.
I don't know how you'd prove that, but I know you'd use immense amounts of very embarrassing depositions, discoveries and subpoenas to try. As I said before, I'd be pretty surprised if language did not exist suggesting FIFA could/would pull the WC for the concerns of the safety of workers. If such language exists, FIFA obviously didn't use it. I suppose that would be a good question for a trial court to answer. Why would that matter? The point of a lawsuit against FIFA would be that their decisions directly contributed to deaths and injuries both physical and financial--which they would have known from the start. Pulling the WC means those people wouldn't get killed/hurt building WC venues. Because FIFA is?