Human rights reputation matters relatively little to Disney when it comes to where to put its parks. The same with the rest of the industry. What matters far more is location, money, and the ability to get access to untapped markets. Disney will never build a park in any of those places. They are either too close to an existing park, too far from major population centers, or too small/economically nonviable to support one. You do not go around building parks on places based on their human rights records - except when doing so would absolutely cause long-term damage above and beyond alternatives. Saudi was, so I've heard, turned down due to such concerns despite the mountains of cash on offer. UAE is far more liberal (probably the most liberal next to Bahrain), and a far better location anyway. Even if they were building it themselves, the UAE makes far too much sense compared to, say, much of South America or Asia to ignore it. Where was this outrage with Shanghai?
This is fair pushback - but yeah, there’s no perfect location. But I’ve worked in the industry at a fairly high level until recently, and this kind of global expansion conversation isn’t as far-fetched as it sounds.
That’s why I’m surprised you’re dismissing the alternatives so quickly.
Canada, Iceland, and Puerto Rico all attract high-spending tourists and don’t come with the same geopolitical baggage. Puerto Rico especially has a giant coastal parcel (Roosevelt Roads) that’s just sitting there. It’s U.S. territory, natively bilingual, desperate to attract investment, and already a cruise port hub. That’s a huge combo. And Disney could build out their own infrastructure, just like they’ve done before.
Uruguay is the dark horse, but strategically it’s not a bad play. It’s politically stable, progressive, and would serve high-income tourists from Argentina, Chile, and Brazil - especially folks who can’t get U.S. visas or just want a closer, more accessible park. Same logic behind Hong Kong and Shanghai. And just like DLP never stopped UK tourists from flying to WDW, this wouldn’t hurt U.S. attendance.
Australia makes sense from a logistics standpoint - strong infrastructure, airlift, and a solid economy. Personally I think New Zealand would offer better creative potential, but it’s hard to beat Australia’s connectivity. Australia is extremely plausible - even if it’s not the most inspired creatively.
None of these ideas are flawless, but all of them come with fewer human rights headaches than opening a resort in the UAE. That’s really the heart of the critique.