As the men’s football World Cup gets under way, the matches and accompanying excitements will engross millions of people around the world, a possibly positive distraction from a general prevailing negativism about the immediate future. But the run up to the opening ceremonies was dominated less by punditry and analysis of players and soccer theories and more by critical offensives against the host state, Qatar. Despite a round of matches having been played, different groups display their continuing displeasure with the morals of Qatar. Even Transport for London has jumped on the virtue signalling train by banning Qatar and Pakistan and Saudi Arabia from advertising on London buses to protest against their homophobia. Is that perhaps a slap in the face to Islam?
Allegations of corruption to win the prize to host the event have swirled around since 2010, against a backdrop of general disbelief that FIFA could decide to award the prize to a country of 300,000 people, to be played in the desert in a summer of 40-50C temperatures, and where football is barely popular but hardly rampant as it is in Europe, and it had no stadia at the time. The event was subsequently moved to winter, but as this article is written the Qatar temperature is approaching 30C, and much more in the open sun. Playing a world cup in winter is itself controversial, interrupting club playing seasons, and limiting severely the preparations by various national teams.
Human rights abuses are another target, especially in respect of migrant workers, nearly 3 million, who are portrayed by critics as the expendable builders of Qatar’s high-rise world, and, particularly pertinent, the 8 new stadia for the matches themselves. Third, there is widespread clamour among the LGBT community as homosexuality is illegal in Qatar, although assurances have been apparently given that homosexual spectators should have no fear provided that they are not too demonstrative in public. But is Qatar being treated fairly and consistently by the mainly Western critics?
GETTING THE PRIZE
FIFA committee members have been prosecuted and replaced after the 2010 decision, many accused of corruption in various circumstances, but the case for the prosecution against corruption by Qatar is not proven, although strong suspicions remain. At the same time as Qatar got 2022, Russia was awarded the World Cup for 2018 and it proceeded to happen, though of course at the time Russia was already a proven systemic cheat at sport through institutionalised drug abuse. Its human rights record is far worse than Qatar’s. It had in 2014 stolen Crimea from Ukraine through illegal violence. Sepp Blatter, the disgraced ex-President of FIFA in 2010, now says publicly the award to Qatar was a mistake. Of course, too, it can be said that the award to an Arab country, Islamic, is an appropriate first as the Arab world is soccer-mad generally and should benefit from a World Cup. But will the possible benefits be felt anywhere bar Qatar and Dubai where football supporters who like a good time are basing themselves?
HOMOPHOBIA
It is perfectly reasonable for the gay community, and its straight supporters, to object to those countries where homosexuals are discriminated against. It is also perfectly reasonable for countries, such as Qatar, to require their laws to be respected by people who choose to visit. The Western liberal approach to homosexuality is a relatively recent phenomenon (illegal when England won the world cup in 1966). It is noteworthy that some 69 countries of the world outlaw homosexuality, including Pakistan, Nigeria and, until 2022, Singapore. That is not to say that all such countries actively enforce their law, especially where activity is kept private. China and Russia both discriminate against gay people, and recently China has hosted the Olympics and winter Olympics, and Russia World Cup football, with no fuss on this topic. Also, the majority of countries in the Commonwealth discriminate against or criminalise homosexuality. Qatar might also say that if a person dislikes their laws, they are not obliged to visit.
Homosexuality is also simply against Islamic law, most Muslims believe. The UAE, including Dubai, is disapproving. But a more liberal approach is finding its way into many countries which are to date anti-gay. And individuals are entitled to campaign for freedoms and criticise regimes they dislike. However, the England football team, and the Australian and others, are publicly proclaiming their distaste for homophobia, and other human rights failures. It is notable that only recently the first gay English premier league footballer came out openly and so English professional footballers’ empathy with homosexuals has some way to go. Also rightly, in the UK there are no footballer or general LGBT protests against Muslims in the UK for their anti-gay belief. Is it right that players who wear the national shirt should in that capacity support particular causes such as LGBT against a country when they are guests of that country where they are playing?
For players to use international sport where they are so identified with their nation, and paid by their nation, to pursue personal causes perhaps is inappropriate, especially if the UK say formally does not oppose that country’s behaviour. There is a significant inconsistency when another national team plays for example cricket in Pakistan without such concern, as England is doing this year. If UK national teams are to stand by a special interest group, would not perhaps solidarity with the Ukrainian people be the most appropriate today as a global message?
ABUSE OF MIGRANT WORKERS
90% of the population of Qatar are immigrants. While of those 2.7 million people some are workers with more sophisticated jobs, the vast majority are low-paid workers from India, Pakistan, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and other Asian countries. Their working conditions fall far short of Western standards, with dormitory accommodation, long hours often in scorching sun, harsh terms of employment and far less regard for health and safety. Dubai and Abu Dhabi are similarly employers of such migrant workers. The Gulf States invaluable leisure industry depends on them.
Allegations of Qatari abuse of workers are legion. Nearly 7000 have died since 2010 when the World Cup was awarded to Qatar, but from what causes is unclear due to poor record keeping, though Qatar suggests this is statistically a number to be expected. Undoubtedly a great many will have died from natural causes. A number will have died from falling off building constructions or heat effects from working in the sun: The Guardian suggests hundreds, Qataris record between 30-40 on building sites. Who knows the true facts? From a humanitarian view, working conditions should be better, and Qatar alleges improvements have been made. There is a minimum wage of $245 monthly. And workers are not forced to go there but go there voluntarily, aware conditions are harsh, in order to send money home to dependents. The alternative of remaining in their own countries is evidently perceived to be worse, with perhaps no job at all and likely destitution or at least worse pay and conditions. Using cheap migrant labour is not confined to the Middle East and is certainly common in Europe and the U.S. Western nations have been accused of some hypocrisy on this topic.
For the World Cup, as described in an Economist article, Indian workers in the leisure industry are flocking from Kerala to Qatar to take opportunities for work presented by over 1 million football visitors. For 3 months those workers can earn six times Kerala wages, and the Kerala leisure industry is suffering accordingly. Kerala is a communist run region. Arguably Asians are benefitting from work availability in the Gulf states when there is little hope at home.
Pressure to improve conditions for workers in Qatar is a good thing. But perhaps really the root cause needs addressing, which lies in the home countries of the migrant workers who leave families for simple survival reasons, suffering to feed and educate their dependents. What are the leaders in those countries doing to address employment poverty? This is perhaps the bigger issue.
MORE THAN A DOSE OF HYPOCRISY?
Even the David Beckham brand comes in for journalistic criticism. He is reported to be paid multi-millions for being a very public ambassador and poster boy for Qatar. Is it ironic or perhaps distasteful that the very sportsman who was a key sponsor of England’s application to FIFA to host the 2022 world cup should now be the beneficiary of a fortune from the winners, whose victory was met with incredulity and allegations of corruption? But is not David Beckham entitled to earn a crust? Countless organisations and people do business with Qatar and similar states for economic benefits. As universally across the globe, wealth in itself is attractive.
Many nations stay very close to Qatar, including most Western democracies, thirsty for their endless supply of gas, exported as LNG, the more so even since Putin declared war on Ukraine and global war on energy supply. Qatar too invests heavily in the UK and similar countries. It wants to be taken seriously on the world stage and is it not better to have dealings with such countries and seek to persuade where human rights may need improvement. There are for example estimated to be about 50 million victims of modern slavery in the world. The Walk Free organisation estimates India, China, Pakistan and Nigeria to be among the worst culprits but slavery even exists in Europe. Qatar and Dubai do not feature in this activity. The worst affected regions are Africa and Asia.
Human rights issues exist in most countries of the world, and it is a question of degree and attitude within each nation. In many cases, it generates disgust. But again moralistic nations have dealings with countries with bad records, seeking to influence. Is there an element of hypocrisy and inconsistency around the campaigns versus Qatar? The seemingly crazed President of FIFA, Gianni Infantino, seems to think so judging from a rather deranged speech in support of Qatar and damning European moralising. All a bit rich coming from the wholly discredited FIFA which chose Qatar in the first place.
BACK TO FOOTBALL
Despite raging controversies around Qatar issues, and now even, heaven forbid, the last-minute banning of alcohol sales in or around Stadia, except for the wealthy in their corporate boxes, football has kicked off. Maybe too it is sad that events such as a football world cup are now only affordable by the wealthiest in society. Nevertheless, through the wonders of media it is to be hoped that the competition bears the fruit of praiseworthy entertainment which can be shared by and unite in a funny sort of way billions of people universally, irrespective of wealth and from all cultures, nationalities and creeds.
Perhaps too it feels more than a little awkward for nations to be celebrating and enjoying this global spectacle when Putin and friends are wantonly and criminally pulverising Ukraine, to destroy a nation, murdering civilians, and committing multiple war crimes. But the world did not stop for the destruction of Syria and the lives of millions of Syrians by Assad, Russia, Isis and others. Even if the show must go on, perhaps a moment’s silence before each match in sadness for and support of Ukrainians could be appropriate. Some nations, heavily invested with Russia, may object to that. Nevertheless, could those participating in this global jamboree express openly some empathy for Ukraine and its people at least?
