Saudi Arabia lifts alcohol ban at 600 sites across the country as it hopes to win over tourists
Saudi Arabia will reportedly lift its ban on alcohol at 600 sites next year as the country aims to win over tourists ahead of the FIFA World Cup 2034.
In a shock U-turn, the ultra-conservative nation will allow the sale of wine, beer and cider at licensed venues including luxury hotels, five-star resorts and tourist developments.
But booze will remain banned in public, homes, shops, and fan zones, with spirits off the menu altogether under the Kingdom's strict rules.
The plans form part of the Gulf State's Vision 2030, an initiative to attract tourists and investment in the lead up to hosting major international events, including the World Cup and Expo 2030.
Officials hope controlled alcohol sales in glamorous areas like Neom, Sindalah Island and the Red Sea Project will help the country compete with Gulf rivals such as the UAE and Bahrain where boozing is already legal in tourist zones.
As per the new alcohol regulations, the venues permitted to sell alcohol will be operated by trained staff under tight licensing conditions.
Drinks and liquor with more than 20 per cent alcohol content will remain banned.
The goal, authorities said, 'is to welcome the world without losing cultural identity - positioning Saudi Arabia as a progressive, yet respectful player on the global tourism map.'
The plan is set to roll out in 2026 - eight years before the World Cup kicks off - and comes amid growing pressure to modernise the Kingdom's image.
The government added in a statement: 'Sales will only happen under controlled environments, with licensed service staff and clear operational rules in place to make sure alcohol is handled responsibly and respectfully.'
Several global hotel chains are already tweaking their blueprints to accommodate booze zones, with tourism bosses eyeing a flood of new jobs and international investment.
It comes after Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the UK had previously said alcohol would be banned when they host the World Cup in 2034, sparking fury among England fans.
Prince Khalid bin Bandar Al Saud told LBC radio in February: 'There is no alcohol at all, rather like our weather, it's a dry country.
'Everyone has their own culture. We're happy to accommodate people within the boundaries of our culture but we don't want to change our culture for someone else.
'It is not a Saudi event, it is a world event and, to a large extent, we will welcome everyone who wants to come.'
In Dubai boozing is already legal in tourist zones
This struck down suggestions that Saudi Arabia would follow in the footsteps of Qatar, another Muslim country, when they hosted the football tournament in 2022.
Supporters there were able to buy alcohol from selected hotels, but not at the stadiums.
But now, Saudi insiders hope the new booze policy will silence critics and show the country is ready to party, with limits.
Sources say the model is inspired by successful alcohol rollouts in Dubai and Manama, where tight control has boosted tourism and business without trashing tradition.
The Kingdom insists this will not be a free-for-all - and anyone caught misusing the system will face swift consequences.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Record
11 minutes ago
- Daily Record
UK to build up to 12 new nuclear-powered attack submarines in major defence shake-up
The UK will build up to 12 new nuclear-powered attack submarines and invest £15 billion in its warhead programme. The UK is poised to construct up to 12 new nuclear-powered attack submarines and will pour £15 billion into its warhead programme, with the Prime Minister set to disclose these plans on Monday during the Government's strategic defence review. Major investments are queued for the UK's nuclear warhead programme this parliamentary session, along with commitments to maintain the current arsenal, as supported by 62 recommendations the Government aims to fully implement. However, there's been a debate over defence spending promises, after the Defence Secretary was unable to verify if the Treasury had secured budgeting to increase it to 3% of GDP by 2034. Part of the Aukus deal with the US and Australia, the creation of these submarines is projected to sustain 30,000 highly skilled jobs into the 2030s, along with generating 30,000 apprenticeships and 14,000 graduate positions over the forthcoming decade, according to the Ministry of Defence. Defence Secretary John Healey remarked: "Our outstanding submariners patrol 24/7 to keep us and our allies safe, but we know that threats are increasing and we must act decisively to face down Russian aggression. "With new state-of-the-art submarines patrolling international waters and our own nuclear warhead programme on British shores, we are making Britain secure at home and strong abroad, while delivering on our Plan for Change with 30,000 highly skilled jobs across the country." The £15 billion investment into the warhead programme will bolster the Government's pledges to sustain the continuous-at-sea nuclear deterrent, construct a new line of Dreadnought submarines, and facilitate all forthcoming enhancements. From the late 2030s, the array of up to 12 SSN-Aukus class attack submarines – conventionally armed yet nuclear-powered – are set to succeed the seven astute class submarines that the UK anticipates commissioning. The Government, in echoing the findings of the strategic defence review, has pledged to:. - Prepare the armed forces for readiness to engage in conflict should the need arise. - Enhance armament reserves and maintain scalability in production capacities to respond promptly in times of crisis or warfare. - Procure up to 7,000 domestically produced long-range missiles, a decision projected to preserve 800 jobs within the defence sector. - Establish a pioneering cyber command while committing £1 billion towards digital advancements. - Allocate an excess of £1.5 billion for refurbishing and updating service personnel accommodation. Sir Keir Starmer is expected to declare: "From the supply lines to the front lines, this Government is foursquare behind the men and women upholding our nation's freedom and security. "National security is the foundation of my Plan for Change, and this plan will ensure Britain is secure at home and strong abroad, while delivering a defence dividend of well-paid jobs up and down the country." The Shadow Defence Secretary, James Cartlidge, expressed scepticism regarding Labour's Strategic Defence Review promises, stating that they would be viewed with caution unless Labour could demonstrate that sufficient funding would be allocated. Labour's Shadow Defence Secretary, John Healey, had previously mentioned in an interview with The Times that there was "no doubt" the UK would achieve its goal of 3% defence spending. However, when questioned on the BBC's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg programme, he sidestepped queries about whether the Treasury had provided any guarantees for the necessary funding. Healey also acknowledged that he did not anticipate an increase in the number of armed forces personnel until the next Parliament, citing ongoing recruitment and retention challenges. When asked about the Army's target of 73,000 personnel, he replied, "We've narrowed the gap, but we've still got more people leaving than joining. "The first job is to reverse that trend and then I want to see in the next parliament our ability to start to increase the number." In response, James Cartlidge argued, "All of Labour's Strategic Defence Review promises will be taken with a pinch of salt unless they can show there will actually be enough money to pay for them. "Whereas, far from guaranteeing the funding, John Healey has been hung out to dry by Rachel Reeves. "As recently as Thursday, Healey promised that defence spending would definitely hit 3%, but today he's completely backtracked. "These submarines are not due to enter service till the late 2030s, so how can we have any confidence Labour will actually deliver them when they can't even sustain a policy on defence spending for more than 48 hours?" Lib Dem defence spokesperson Helen Maguire commented: "This signals absolutely the right intent about the need to bolster the UK's defences in the face of Putin's imperialism and Trump's unreliability. "But this must come with a concrete commitment and detail on full funding. "Labour's mere 'ambition' rather than commitment to reach 3% of GDP on defence leaves serious questions about whether the money for these projects will actually be forthcoming. "The 2034 timeline suggests a worrying lack of urgency from the Government. "Unless Labour commits to holding cross-party talks on how to reach 3% much more rapidly than the mid-2030s, this announcement risks becoming a damp squib."
BBC News
42 minutes ago
- BBC News
The AI copyright standoff continues - with no solution in sight
The fierce battle over artificial intelligence (AI) and copyright - which pits the government against some of the biggest names in the creative industry - returns to the House of Lords on Monday with little sign of a solution in sight.A huge row has kicked off between ministers and peers who back the artists, and shows no sign of abating. It might be about AI but at its heart are very human issues: jobs and highly unusual that neither side has backed down by now or shown any sign of compromise; in fact if anything support for those opposing the government is growing rather than tailing off. This is "unchartered territory", one source in the peers' camp told me. The argument is over how best to balance the demands of two huge industries: the tech and creative sectors. More specifically, it's about the fairest way to allow AI developers access to creative content in order to make better AI tools - without undermining the livelihoods of the people who make that content in the first sparked it is the uninspiringly-titled Data (Use and Access) proposed legislation was broadly expected to finish its long journey through parliament this week and sail off into the law books. Instead, it is currently stuck in limbo, ping-ponging between the House of Lords and the House of bill states that AI developers should have access to all content unless its individual owners choose to opt out. Nearly 300 members of the House of Lords disagree. They think AI firms should be forced to disclose which copyrighted material they use to train their tools, with a view to licensing Nick Clegg, former president of global affairs at Meta, is among those broadly supportive of the bill, arguing that asking permission from all copyright holders would "kill the AI industry in this country". Those against include Baroness Beeban Kidron, a crossbench peer and former film director, best known for making films such as Bridget Jones: The Edge of says ministers would be "knowingly throwing UK designers, artists, authors, musicians, media and nascent AI companies under the bus" if they don't move to protect their output from what she describes as "state sanctioned theft" from a UK industry worth £ asking for an amendment to the bill which includes Technology Secretary Peter Kyle giving a report to the House of Commons about the impact of the new law on the creative industries, three months after it comes into force, if it doesn't change. Mr Kyle also appears to have changed his views about UK copyright once said copyright law was "very certain", now he says it is "not fit for purpose".Perhaps to an extent both those things are Department for Science, Innovation and Technology say that they're carrying out a wider consultation on these issues and will not consider changes to the Bill unless they're completely satisfied that they work for creators. If the "ping pong" between the two Houses continues, there's a small chance the entire bill could be shelved; I'm told it's unlikely but not it does, some other important elements would go along with it, simply because they are part of the same bill. It also includes proposed rules on the rights of bereaved parents to access their children's data if they die, changes to allow NHS trusts to share patient data more easily, and even a 3D underground map of the UK's pipes and cables, aimed at improving the efficiency of roadworks (I told you it was a big bill).There is no easy answer. How did we get here? Here's how it all started. Initially, before AI exploded into our lives, AI developers scraped enormous quantities of content from the internet, arguing that it was in the public domain already and therefore freely available. We are talking about big, mainly US, tech firms here doing the scraping, and not paying for anything they hoovered they used that data to train the same AI tools now used by millions to write copy, create pictures and videos in seconds. These tools can also mimic popular musicians, writers, artists. For example, a recent viral trend saw people merrily sharing AI images generated in the style of the Japanese animation firm Studio founder of that studio meanwhile, had once described the use of AI in animation as "an insult to life itself". Needless to say, he was not a has been a massive backlash from many content creators and owners including household names like Sir Elton John, Sir Paul McCartney and Dua Lipa. They have argued that taking their work in this way, without consent, credit or payment, amounted to theft. And that artists are now losing work because AI tools can churn out similar content freely and quickly Elton John didn't hold back in a recent interview with the BBC's Laura Kuenssberg. He argued that the government was on course to "rob young people of their legacy and their income", and described the current administration as "absolute losers".Others though point out that material made by the likes of Sir Elton is available worldwide. And if you make it too hard for AI companies to access it in the UK they'll simply do it elsewhere instead, taking much needed investment and job opportunities with opposing positions, no obvious compromise. Sign up for our Tech Decoded newsletter to follow the world's top tech stories and trends. Outside the UK? Sign up here.
BBC News
2 hours ago
- BBC News
Cumbria Tourism warns bus fares prove 'a barrier' to work
High public transport costs are a barrier to employment in the tourism industry, a business group has Tourism said a survey of its businesses found 80% of employers worried the potential removal of the £3 cap on bus fares would impact their staff's ability to get to work."There is concern for employers that if the cap is removed, staff may stop using buses due to cost and this could affect punctuality, job access and reliability," a spokesman Department for Transport (DfT) said affordable buses were "the lifeblood of communities" and the cap would be in place until the end of 2025. Previously, the cost of single bus journeys had been capped at £2, rising to £3 in Tourism, which represents 4,500 businesses in the area, said the cap had been a "lifeline" for staff who often work in remote hotels and restaurants around the Townson, who works at Lakeside Hotel, said the cap was a "game changer" as she did not drive."If it increased, I'd either have to rely on others to provide lifts or cut back on essentials elsewhere - neither is a great option," she said. Bus cap incentive Cumbria Tourism said it had worked with bus providers and councils to make existing buses work for hospitality employees, with the introduction of early morning and later evening association said its survey also found that 40% of workers had not used buses before the cap was introduced due to high Nesbitt, who works at Grasmere Gingerbread, said: "The £3 bus fare makes it possible for me to get to work without it costing a large portion of my income each week."The DfT said it had put in place a £955m bus funding package to support lower fares."Our Bus Services Bill will further empower local councils to take control of their services in ways that work for their communities," a spokesperson said. Follow BBC Cumbria on X, Facebook, Nextdoor and Instagram.
