By coincidence, I began writing this piece a few days before the 10th anniversary of FIFA’s decision to award Qatar the 2022 World Cup. The decision, met with incredulity by many, has been deplored by the footballing community ever since.
The subsequent fines, suspensions and life bans, handed out to 11 of the 22 FIFA committee members who voted on the 2022 bids, vindicated suspicions that FIFA’s choice to award the gulf state with the tournament was influenced by the dark arts. However, in the months that preceded the tournament, British media has paid far more attention to Qatar’s stance on the rights of migrant workers, thousands of whom are believed to have died building stadiums for the tournament, and LGBTQ+ people. This, and not the tainted nature of the Qatari world cup bid, has been the argument the prosecution have made to suggest that Qatar is a nation unfit to host the tournament. The defence have argued, amongst other things, the outcry is an example of Western hypocrisy and entitlement.
The aim of this piece is not just to proffer an argument, but also to establish what fans at our university think about the tournament and the quandaries surrounding it. Three fans, all of whom share an unquenchable enthusiasm for the game, have shared their stance on Qatar.
The Argentina vs. Saudi Arabia match occurred a day after a host of nations, including England and Wales, had declared they would no longer wear the OneLove armband, cultivated to raise awareness about LGBTQ+ discrimination in Qatar. Watching the match. Tom Mangan, a second year history student, expressed the sentiment that England and Wales had been both sanctimonious and supine. It was incredibly embarrassing to see one’s country display our virtues only to cower when met with the rather pitiful threat, compared to the exile Muhammad Ali, Tommie Smith and John Carlos countenanced due to their activism, of a yellow card. Tom expressed his outrage at the treatment of migrant workers, describing it as “utterly unforgivable.” So, should Qatar should have been awarded the World Cup? Tom argues this question requires more nuance than a yes/no answer could provide. The obscene amount of alleged migrant worker deaths owes part to the colossal construction projects embarked upon after the tournament was awarded to Qatar. Therefore, the infrastructure of prospective hosts must be adequate.
Should we take into consideration different countries laws on homosexuality? Again, not a question with a straightforward answer. Do we eschew the moral commitment we have to raise these issues when attending, as England and Wales did, or veto the hosting of a tournament by those who have different cultural perspectives to ourselves? In eight of the World Cup’s thirty-two nations, homosexuality is punishable by law, which suggests that many footballing nations would be excluded from hosting a tournament in the future.
Another second year history student, Nathan Wong, said “Qatar is not a geopolitical pariah,” and that fans should appreciate these debates. He said the debates around morality are futile unless our government changes their approach to middle eastern states. Whether our approach, to Qatar in particular, should or can change, remains an open question.
Nathan says, “without Qatar we would have no energy,” a point slightly hyperbolic yet not wholly untrue, as Qatar is one of the leading providers of fuel to the UK. Would it be wise, as the Western world attempts to wean off Russian oil and gas, to alienate Qatar, along with other Middle Eastern and Islamic countries, by boycotting the tournament? We were both agreed that the nature of Qatar’s bid required further scrutiny and that the death of migrant workers is a tragedy, but that pragmatism is necessary on a state level and perhaps a level of tolerance toward other cultures should be shown.
Gwyn Roberts, a third year history student and fervent Wales fan whose passion puts that of many England fans to shame, went to Qatar for Wales’s opening group game. Gwyn told me that the experience was dissimilar to his first experience of an international away day in France for the 2016 Euros, mainly due to the absence of what he dubbed a “tournament atmosphere.” He proudly told me that the Welsh fans had manifested an atmosphere one would expect after a 64 year absence, inside the ground, and that the general atmosphere in the stadium was good, but that the experience outside the stadium was slightly peculiar. This is not unsurprising, as the tournament in itself is the first in this part of the world, the first to take place in the winter, and inaccessible for many European fans. Thus, you are unlikely to have the ‘traditional’ atmosphere many of us crave.
He was slightly disappointed the Wales players had not worn the OneLove armband, arguing it would have been a powerful moment had a player been carded, but said it was unfair to ask players to risk the opportunity they may have to play games in a later stage of the tournament. He was unequivocal in denouncing the decision to award Qatar the world cup and did little to repress his ecstasy at the fact Qatar – like Wales, one may add – was dumped out after a string of pathetic performances.
What does all this say about the tournament and fans’ views on it? Ultimately, it is evident that FIFA’s decision to award Qatar the World Cup continues, even at this point in the tournament, to be met with criticism by many for a range of different reasons. However, this criticism does not seem to have affected fans’ desire to watch the games. The devout followers of the game will not cease to worship the sport simply because of corruption allegations against the powers that be.
