Skip to main content

Security report for fifa.com

FIFA · Other · N/a

Low risk. 4 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and SSL/TLS.

Security score

76/100

Risk levelLow

0–100, higher is better. How it is calculated

The FIFA website represents the official online presence of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association, the global governing body for football. FIFA organizes major international football tournaments and serves a worldwide audience of football fans, players, officials, and media. The organization operates as a large non-profit entity with a global market position as the authoritative football institution. However, the provided HTML content is inaccessible, showing only a loading animation, indicating the presence of a Web Application Firewall or security mechanism blocking content access. This limits the ability to fully analyze the website's content, policies, and technical details. Technically, the website appears to use modern JavaScript frameworks such as React, with integrations of marketing and tracking tools like AppsFlyer, Adobe DTM, and OneTrust for cookie consent. Despite this, the lack of accessible content and absence of visible privacy or cookie policies in the provided data suggest gaps in privacy compliance and transparency. Security headers and SSL configuration details are not discernible from the content, and no contact or incident response information is available. From a security posture perspective, the site is protected by a WAF or similar mechanism, which is a positive security control but also restricts content visibility. The absence of WHOIS data reduces trust signals, though the domain is globally recognized. Overall, the site scores low on content quality and privacy compliance due to blocked content and missing policies. Strategically, FIFA should ensure that its website content is accessible to legitimate users and that privacy and security policies are clearly published and compliant with regulations such as GDPR. Enhancing transparency and contact availability would improve trust and user confidence.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
50/ 100 · Medium
Checks completed
7of 7

NIS2 Art. 21(2)

  1. (a) Risk analysis and security policies: Not visible from outside
  2. (b) Incident handling: One indicator
  3. (c) Business continuity, backups and crisis management: Not visible from outside
  4. (d) Supply chain security: Not visible from outside
  5. (e) Secure acquisition, development and maintenance, including vulnerability handling: Partly checked
  6. (f) Assessing the effectiveness of security measures: Not visible from outside
  7. (g) Cyber hygiene and security training: Not visible from outside
  8. (h) Cryptography and encryption: Partly checked
  9. (i) HR security, access control and asset management: One indicator
  10. (j) Multi-factor authentication and secured communications: Not visible from outside

This scan rated NIS2 with an earlier keyword method that is no longer shown; rescan for the per-article view. Risk management, continuity, supply chain, training, MFA, management oversight (Art. 20) and incident reporting (Art. 23) need internal evidence, and Guard cannot tell whether NIS2 applies to this organisation.

GDPR is indicative only, based on publicly visible signals: Articles 7, 12, 13 and 32 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Article 5(3) of the ePrivacy Directive. Not a certification or legal assessment.

Priority findings

4 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. GDPR outside view

    These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.

    • High

      No Privacy Policy found

      GDPR requires a clear and accessible privacy policy

      What to do: Add a comprehensive privacy policy page and link to it prominently

    • High

      No Cookie Policy found

      GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage

      What to do: Add a dedicated cookie policy explaining cookie usage and purposes

    • High

      Third-party services without privacy policy

      Detected services: Cloudflare

      What to do: Document all third-party data sharing in your privacy policy

  2. SSL/TLS

    TLS encrypts the connection and proves the site is really yours. Weak or expiring certificates trigger browser warnings and put traffic at risk.

    • High

      Weak SSL Key Length

      SSL certificate uses 256-bit key, which is considered weak

      What to do: Use at least 2048-bit RSA or 256-bit ECC key

      • CWE-326
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: rsa_key_size 2048

Need hands-on remediation? Email guard@offseq.com

Keep watching fifa.com

This scan found 17 issues across 6 checks. Monitoring re-runs those checks daily, emails you when something material changes and records each fix, so you can show progress.

Daily monitoring

Recommended

€25per month

  • TLS certificates and expiry
  • DNS records
  • SPF, DKIM and DMARC
  • Security headers
  • GDPR and NIS2 posture
  • Exposed services
  • Third-party trackers
  • Security score drift

Email alerts on material changes and an exportable JSON history of every change.

Billed monthly to your card. Cancel anytime. The full timeline opens with your unlock code.

Full report

€39.90one-time

  • The complete analysis as a PDF you can cite
  • Email delivery with an unlock code
  • Lifetime access to this report

Prices incl. 21% VAT. Secure checkout by Mollie; sold by SEQ SIA, Latvia.

Results by check

Each check with its score, findings and the evidence it collected.

How this score is calculated

The security score runs 0–100, higher is better. It is the plain average of the security checks that completed in this scan, each counted equally. A check that could not run is left out: it counts neither as a pass nor as a fail.

Counted in this score

SSL/TLS
75
Security headers
75
Email security
70
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
76

Not counted

  • NIS2 outside view: Re-weights evidence from the TLS, email, DNS, network and hygiene checks, so counting it would count that evidence twice. Shown on its own.
  • OffSeq Observations: An AI reading of the site, useful context but not reproducible evidence. Shown on its own.

Findings that cap the score at 49

Each of these is serious on its own, so while any is present the site cannot rate better than high risk, however good the other checks are.

  • The certificate is not trusted by browsers
  • The website is not served over HTTPS
  • A database, remote desktop, file-sharing or Telnet service is reachable from the internet
  • The page loads a script from a compromised source
  • The domain registration has expired
  • SPF authorises every server to send mail as the domain

Partial scans

When the site blocks Guard or most checks cannot run, the score covers only the checks that ran (usually DNS and email), is capped at 75 and is shown as partial, without a risk level.

Risk levels

  • Critical0–25
  • High26–49
  • Medium50–75
  • Low76–100

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

FIFA holds a dominant position in the global sports governance sector, specifically football. Its business model centers on organizing international tournaments, promoting football development, and managing global football regulations. Revenue streams likely include sponsorships, broadcasting rights, and event-related income. The target audience spans football fans, players, officials, and media worldwide. The organization maintains a strong brand presence but the analyzed website content is inaccessible, limiting digital engagement. Partnerships with marketing and analytics providers indicate a mature digital marketing ecosystem. However, the lack of visible privacy and contact information may impact user trust and regulatory compliance. FIFA's global stature and authoritative role provide competitive advantages, but digital transparency improvements are advisable.

Security posture

The website is protected by a Web Application Firewall or similar security mechanism, which effectively blocks unauthorized or automated access, enhancing security. However, the lack of accessible content prevents a full security assessment. No security headers or SSL details are visible, and no evidence of incident response or vulnerability disclosure policies is found. The absence of privacy and cookie policies indicates potential compliance gaps with GDPR and other data protection regulations. The use of third-party tracking and marketing scripts suggests moderate user tracking, which should be balanced with privacy compliance. Overall, the security posture shows strengths in perimeter defense but weaknesses in transparency and policy publication.

Recommendations

  1. Ensure website content is accessible to legitimate users by properly configuring WAF rules to avoid overblocking.
  2. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies clearly accessible on the website to improve GDPR compliance.
  3. Implement and verify security headers such as Content Security Policy, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options to enhance security posture.
  4. Provide clear contact information including security incident response contacts to improve transparency and trust.
  5. Conduct regular security audits and vulnerability assessments to identify and remediate potential risks.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. The HTML content is a minimal loading page with no actual website content, indicating a WAF or security challenge blocking full access. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Company
FIFA
Description
FIFA is the international governing body of association football, futsal and beach soccer, organizing major international football tournaments including the FIFA World Cup.
Key services
organizing football tournaments, providing football news and updates, football development and governance
Content quality
poor
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
React (implied by chunked JS files), Webpack, AppsFlyer SDK, OneTrust Cookie Consent, PingOne SDK, Adobe DTM
Frameworks
React
Performance
slow
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Analytics and tracking

Services
Adobe DTM, AppsFlyer
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Ad networks
AppsFlyer
Tracking pixels
AppsFlyer, Adobe DTM, OneTrust
Marketing tools
Adobe DTM, PingOne
Transparency
basic

Site quality

Design
poor
User experience
poor
Content relevance
poor
Navigation
poor
Professionalism
poor
Trustworthiness
low

Key observations

  1. Website content is inaccessible, showing only a loading animation with no actual content.
  2. WHOIS data is unavailable, indicating registry restrictions or privacy protection.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies detected in the provided HTML.
  4. No contact information or forms detected in the provided HTML.
  5. Multiple third-party scripts for tracking and marketing are included.
  6. No security headers or SSL configuration details available from the HTML content.
  7. Website appears to be protected by a WAF or security mechanism blocking content access.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern JavaScript framework, likely React, with chunked JavaScript files and Webpack bundling. It integrates multiple third-party services including AppsFlyer for marketing analytics, Adobe DTM for tag management, OneTrust for cookie consent, and PingOne for identity management. The site attempts to preload fonts and scripts for performance optimization. However, the actual content is blocked by a security mechanism, resulting in a slow perceived performance and poor user experience. Mobile optimization and accessibility appear basic but cannot be fully assessed due to content blocking. SEO optimization is minimal with no meta tags or structured data visible. Hosting provider and CMS are not identifiable from the provided data.
Standards and sources

Reference chips under each finding point to the standard, regulation or specification the finding relates to. They are taken from the official datasets below and mapped conservatively: a finding with no defensible link shows none. NIS2 and GDPR references mark where a finding is relevant evidence, not a compliance verdict. Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690 binds digital infrastructure and digital service providers; for other entities it is the most detailed public reading of the Article 21 measures. WCAG, EN 301 549, European Accessibility Act and Web Accessibility Directive references name the requirement an automated accessibility rule relates to; they are not a conformance verdict.

Retrieved 2026-10-25

Earlier scans of this domain

  1. 73/100Medium27 findingsView report
  2. 50/100Medium12 findings · partial scanView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with fifa.com. Every review is verified by email and published after moderation.

Overall rating
Select a rating
4000 characters remaining

We’ll email you to confirm your review and keep your details private.

Community rating

No published reviews yet. Be the first to review fifa.com.

Feedback on this report

Rate this report, add an optional comment, and tell us if you want a security specialist to follow up.

Overall report quality
Select a rating
2000 characters remaining

We only use your feedback to improve Guard reports. Contact details are never shared.