Protests on the pitch.
Protests in the stands.
Heavy scrutiny in the media.
Football has never been politicised quite like this in the public eye.
Qatar has come under srutiny
Qatar's human rights record
Briefcases stuffed with cash
The colossal loss of life
Football, like the world, finds itself in the middle of a clash
between differing cultures, values, and morals.
And FIFA will soon have to vote on where the 2030 Men’s World Cup will be held.
It could be handed to Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Two autocratic countries.
The United States will co-host the 2026 tournament,
home to gun violence and anti-abortion laws.
Political and societal issues are bound to play a role in future tournaments.
So how did we get here? And how can football navigate its way through this world of politics?
This is the moment it all started to escalate.
Politics in sport aren’t new. We’ve seen uproar in the past
such as the 1936 Olympics in Nazi Germany,
the 1978 Men’s World Cup in Argentina,
and most recently, Russia in 2018.
Sport and politics have always been closely interwoven.
We’ve seen many manifestations over the years and the World Cup in Qatar is just the latest.
But Qatar 2022 saw an extraordinary amount of scrutiny.
No matter where you sit, it was a bizarre start to the tournament.
From the intense media coverage…
to Gianni Infantino’s opening diatribe.
Today I feel Arab.
Today I feel African.
Today I feel gay.
Germany’s protest went viral. As did Iran’s.
Footballers have never felt more emboldened to take a stand.
Fans openly voiced support for Palestine,
for women’s rights,
and for the LGBTQ community.
It’s been a wild ride.
And it all started with legitimate criticism of Qatar’s approach to this World Cup.
I think one of the scary things about this World Cup is the way in which the organisers
are completely conscious of the political dimension and yet are turning aside from it.
Critics have pointed to migrant worker deaths...
That’s three work related deaths, and 36 non-work related deaths.
Death is a natural part of life. Whether is at work, whether it's in your sleep.
...the country’s laws against homosexuality...
...its views towards women...
...the questionable carbon costs of the World Cup...
and, of course, the bribery allegations.
Qatar, a country with little footballing history
successfully used the World Cup to elevate its global influence.
It’s caused a debate that is divisive, confronting, and has a tendency to descend into Whataboutism.
Western media called out Qatar and FIFA over corruption allegations
and was accused of hypocrisy in return.
Why do we perceive Qatar as being so much more corrupt, because it paid bribes to win the World Cup?
That’s also true of other countries.
And that, I think, has to invite questions about how Qataris, Middle Easterners, Arabs, Muslims
are perceived in the West,
and whether the same misconduct, that has occurred in the West,
when it occurs among these people,
we somehow react as if it’s shocking,
it's unprecedented, it's more severe, it’s more reprehensible.
Qatar played the ruthless game of geopolitics. FIFA chased profits above all else.
Many Western businesses and governments also benefited from the venture.
It’s the reality of our hyper-capitalistic world.
Football, sport in general, is merely a reflection of the wider political scene.
In that sense we are at a turning point it seems in history.
That turning point is the battle between liberal and non-liberal values.
Many parts of the world chose not to criticise Qatar.
The tournament highlighted that our globalised society holds conflicting values.
If you look at Asia and Africa, perhaps their view of this is that
there’s a certain amount of European, American hypocrisy in this,
and so they’re not as prepared to be critical of the Qatari regime.
What I believe in, is most certainly different to what you believe in.
Everyone draws a line on morality.
But one issue is that the world’s values are constantly changing.
The line will be different in 5, 10, or 20 years.
Homosexuality wasn’t completely decriminalised in Germany until 1994.
And in 50 years’ time, some of the world may look back
at industrial slaughterhouses as its greatest shame.
In the West, democratic and free speech values have been
developed at a pace set by internal politics.
It’s now placing external expectations on other nations to keep up.
Every country has its own line.
The unfairness is in expecting all other regions, all countries
to immediately be at the level of Western countries.
That’s unrealistic, that’s even naive.
The better, more fair, more productive approach would be to say,
how can we support these countries to making progress as rapidly as possible,
and can we celebrate the progress that they’ve made.
FIFA, with 211 diverse members, is stuck in the middle of this debate on values and morality.
So too, is European club football in relation to foreign ownership.
So after Qatar, how will the football world react to future tournament hosts?
There are four bids expected for the 2030 Men’s World Cup.
And the world will have very different views on
which countries are more suitable.
Morocco has put its hat in the ring.
There’s a joint bid from South America.
Spain and Portugal have teamed up with Ukraine.
And there’s also a bid expected from Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Greece.
No one country can claim to be completely controversy free.
If we were to adopt absolutely strict liberal,
moral principles, I guess no nation qualifies, right?
The Men’s World Cup heads to the United States in 2026.
Gun laws, anti-abortion legislation and the policing system will be under the microscope.
Australia co-hosts the Women’s World Cup this year.
A country that operates offshore detention camps for refugees
and whose indigenous population suffers from inequality.
The most progressive, the most balanced conversation we can have is,
well are we in the West really any better?
Infantino took that strand of thought to a whole new level.
I think for what we Europeans have been doing in the last 3,000 years around the world,
we should be apologising for the next 3,000 years before starting to give moral lessons.
Some people supported his statement. Others called it out as Whataboutism.
The thing is, it’s possible for two things to be true.
It’s possible for us Europeans and Americans to be hypocrites
and failed to have recognised the sins of our own past.
And also for the human rights abuses in Qatar and suppression of LGBTQ+ communities
to be appalling and something we should protest against.
This is where Whataboutism isn’t helping the conversation.
It’s a common response when someone feels attacked.
Such as Iran coach Carlos Queiroz when asked about protests against the Islamic Republic.
You don't ask same kind of questions to the other coaches and the other national teams, knowing they have so many problems.
And they cause sometimes problems all over the world.
So you should ask the same questions to the others.
Iranian state media duly pointed the finger back at the West,
in the form of US Captain Tyler Adams.
Are you ok representing a country that has so much
discrimination against Black people in its own borders?
You know, there’s discrimination everywhere you go.
Whether players and coaches should be drawn into these discussions is a whole other topic.
But it does highlight how Whatboutism can easily derail a debate.
Now, where were we?
So how do we draw a line between countries that are “good enough” and countries that aren’t?
And is that even possible?
We all have to draw our own line.
And there’s no way of deciding one line is correct and one line is incorrect.
I can’t say that yours is the wrong line, it’s just not the line that I would draw.
FIFA has been one of the main adjudicators for football’s line.
Across the past decade the World Cup has been sent to non-Western nations.
Profits may well be FIFA’s main goal, but you can’t deny
it has diversified football away from Europe and the Americas.
Seeing the Arab world embrace its first World Cup was indeed a beautiful sight.
That’s one of the achievements of FIFA, to become more inclusive internationally
in terms of football and to give those nations more of a chance.
Now we’ve reached this tension point, where sadly many of the regimes
in those parts of the world are repressive regimes that do not allow free speech
and do not allow political opposition.
Countries such as China,
Russia,
Brazil and Qatar
have all posed moral dilemmas for the Western world.
And the traditional European powerhouses are not used to being second in the pecking order.
So could we see a power struggle in the near future?
One that’s based on values and ideals?
One possibility is that we go on with this and there are some compromises within FIFA and it keeps on going.
But I think there’s another possibility,
where the democratic, free speech inclinations in Europe actually decide to go their own way,
and say we can’t participate in this corrupt organisation anymore.
But that could mean pitting the West against the rest.
I just would counsel against the categorical assumption that the only way to avoid
corruption and human rights issues is to return mega sports to the West and the North.
FIFA will certainly have to engage in healthier dialogue if it’s to keep everyone on side.
Yet are we expecting more from FIFA than we are from our own governments and businesses?
Sports are merely a reflection of realities in other aspects of our lives.
The president of the United States fist-bumped Mohammed bin Salman in Saudi Arabia.
Clearly indicating a tolerance of what is an oppressive regime.
So that demonstrates that, yes, FIFA will take its cue from that
and say, “well, if the president of the United States can do that,
why should you say that we have to behave differently?
As governing body of the world’s biggest game,
FIFA finds itself in the middle of this struggle between liberal and non-liberal values.
The problem is that FIFA’s detractors feel they lean closer to one side of this struggle.
The major sporting organisations are actually more aligned with
suppression and anti-democratic forces than they are with freedom and democratic forces.
One would like to see a re-alignment within those organisations.
I suspect there will be pressure for that to come.
I really struggle to know what the outcome will be though.
The uncertainty is a big question mark for world football going forward.
Because it’s clear both sides, as well as FIFA, are using the game for political leverage.
FIFA did in fact draw a line in 2022, when it suspended Russia after its invasion of Ukraine.
But is FIFA really able to act with a moral compass that pleases everyone?
Individuals and companies can of course decide
whether or not they want to boycott future tournaments.
But so far no national football association has been willing to take a meaningful stand.
So what happens when the world faces its next Qatar?
One option is division and boycotts. Another is inclusion and engagement.
One of the most beautiful, most compelling things about
the way these cultures and nationalities gather here
and interact, is the political speech that occurs.
I don't think that detracts from the experience, I think it quite enhances it.
I think it’s a tension, but it’s a constructive tension.
Through football and the World Cup
that constructive tension can play out in a fairly unique environment.
Where else in the world can we do this?
Where else in the world can so many countries come together
and express their identity, both culturally and politically,
in a way that doesn't deteriorate into conflict, and riots, and fights, and so forth?
The sporting aspect, which draws all of us to football in the first place,
will still maintain its romanticism and ability to entertain.
Lionel Messi winning his first World Cup.
Morocco reaching the semi-final.
Ronaldo leaving in devastating tears. They will all remain.
Off the field, however, FIFA’s challenge is to try and build bridges in this battle of ideologies.
That includes living up to its own slogans, and admitting
this discussion is inseparable from sport.
The question is whether FIFA, and its members, are actually up to that task.
FIFA’s record is actually patchy.
And so it’s not clear that they are going to formulate a clear policy.
The position of Gianni Infantino as president looks pretty secure at the moment,
so it doesn’t look like there’s any internal change within FIFA coming in the near term.
If football’s governing bodies continue to pretend politics don’t exist in sport,
it could just lead to more division.
There is a lot at stake,
So can FIFA actually rise to the challenge, and try to help unite the world through football?