Select a region
While I have never made a secret of the fact that I do not think the World Cup is as essential to the universe as FIFA would have us believe, I don’t often go out my way to air my frustrations on the subject. However, when it comes to the deplorable charade that is Qatar 2022, I’m prepared to make an exception.
While charities and campaign groups continue to urge World Cup qualifying countries to reconsider their priorities, it seems that watching grown men run around with a ball continues to trump taking a stand against human rights violations.
It’s nothing new that in England, and many other comparable countries, there are people who are homeless, starving and dying in extreme poverty on one end of the scale, and men kicking a ball about earning hundreds of thousands of pounds per week at the other end.
While various objections are raised periodically about this disparity, it is little surprise that it continues largely uninterrupted. What is surprising, is that the Qatar World Cup is continuing uninterrupted.
Pictured: Is this 14-inch trophy worth over 6,500 deaths?
You would think (or hope) that even a cursory Google search into the atrocities surrounding the abuse and exploitation of migrant workers in Qatar would raise some questions about whether the FIFA business venture – because, let’s be real, that’s what the World Cup is – should be allowed to continue. And yet, despite the horrific realities and staggering death toll directly related to the event, international outrage remains pending.
Football icon David Beckham was recently called out for purporting to be a feminist, gay rights advocate and all-around-good-guy while accepting a reported £10m. to promote Qatar. As well as being one of the world’s “most important producers of oil and gas”, Qatar also happens to be a country where homosexuality is illegal and women can face prison sentences for being raped.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Golden Balls.
The question becomes whether the finger can be pointed at David Beckham without also being pointed straight back at the 32 qualifying countries of Qatar 2022. In short, the answer is ‘no’.
Pictured: Migrants working on Khalifa Stadium are paid an average of $220 per month, while the lead contractor was handed $90m. for the project.
I have seen a lot of media coverage, heard endless conversations and read a myriad of articles about whether Qatar was a suitable choice for arguably the most popular sporting event in the world.
Although, rather than those questions being raised about the country's deplorable human rights record, the main concern seemed to be whether it might be too hot for the highly paid players to run around. The result being a winter tournament in place of the usual summer games; problem solved everyone.
It is worth noting that I am aware that England players donate their World Cup wages to charity. I do not dispute that football players have, and continue, to donate considerable amounts of their money and time to charity.
It seems though that there is a convenient blind-spot in the collective conscience when it comes to Qatar 2022.
Maybe qualifying countries don’t know what’s happening in Qatar. Maybe the issue hasn't been highlighted enough by countless high profile media organisations. Maybe Amnesty International didn’t launch a “Qatar World Cup of Shame” campaign to specifically raise awareness of the deaths of more than 6,500 migrant workers working on the Khalifa Stadium.
Pictured: David Beckham has been criticised for appearing in an ad campaign promoting Qatar.
Maybe countries have never boycotted a sporting event due to concerns surrounding the host country's human rights abuses before. (Let’s ignore the diplomatic boycott of the Beijing Winter Olympics this year by the UK, Canada, United States and Australia.)
Or maybe, just maybe, a boycott of the World Cup would negatively impact FIFA’s expectation of exceeding its $6.44bn revenue target for its 2019 to 2022 rights cycle.
While it would no doubt be disappointing to the estimated five billion people around the world who will watch the 2022 World Cup, surely a boycott would be worthwhile to show that we don’t support the exploitation of other human beings?
According to England Manager, Gareth Southgate, no.
Earlier this year Sky Sports reported that Southgate had ruled out a boycott. He was quoted as saying: “I don’t really know what that [boycotting] achieves… it would be a big story, but the tournament would go ahead”.
It's an odd comment to come from a man who supports his players taking the knee to promote a message of anti-racism. Does taking the knee instantly abolish racism Gareth? No. But it does give a clear message of the values of the players, team and, by implication, the country. Southgate has even acknowledged that the gesture of solidarity is to “educate people around the world”.
Pictured: Footballers take the knee to promote a message of anti-racism.
It's unclear whether Southgate is a pessimist, realist, or whether he just doesn’t fully understand the concept of a boycott. Sure, if only the England team chooses to boycott, then the tournament would go ahead. However, if enough qualifying countries decided to “educate the world” with a boycott, then there would be no tournament.
What would be lost if England decided to boycott?
Would a country that hasn’t won a World Cup in over half a century be a massive loss to the event? Probably not.
Would the Great British public refuse to watch without the heroic lions being involved? It’s unlikely considering people usually continue to watch even after England is, inevitably and repeatedly, knocked out.
Would it send a clear message to the world that England values human life more more than it values 22 men passing a ball between each other for 90 minutes? Undoubtedly.
If this is finally the year where “it’s coming home”, let’s hope the 13lb, 14-inch, 18-karat gold trophy is worth the expense of a nation’s morality.
