The World Cup

The ongoing World Cup in Qatar is perhaps the most controversial football event in history, and national players have found themselves amidst ideological and political battles. Only recently, a Qatari World Cup ambassador claimed homosexuality to be a ‘damage of the mind’ on television. He went on to explain how problematic it is to be exposed to same-sex relations in public. Therefore, people traveling to Qatar for the tournament must adhere to the local rules. Disregarding how Qatari’s social, political and religious norms conflict with liberal values, it seems that this tournament has been tainted from the start: accusations have been made that link Qatar’s World Cup bidding success to corruption. During the construction of the stadiums used for the tournament in Qatar, the extreme working conditions and inhumane living conditions of migrant workers were heavily criticized; before the first match, FIFA forbade football players from wearing the ‘OneLove’ armband.

In light of all these concerns over the rights of women, the LGTBQ+ community, and migrant workers, a ‘Boycott Qatar 2022’ campaign was brought to life ahead of the start of the tournament. Moreover, many cities – such as Paris and Barcelona – have announced that they will not broadcast World Cup games in public places. Football fan associations have also put pressure on national teams to boycott the tournament, however unsuccessfully. Nonetheless, many fans, as well as some former football players such as Eric Cantona, have made a personal decision to not watch the 2022 World Cup. Similarly, Phillip Lahm, former German captain, has announced that he will not be traveling to Qatar because of their human rights abuses. On the other hand, David Beckham has taken on a role as an ambassador for the tournament, for which he was reportedly paid £150m. Even though FIFA has strict rules for players that ensure politics is kept out of football during matches, the media is rigorously monitoring any political statements made by footballers, or the lack thereof. 

As the World Cup draws to a close, public debate continues to grow and no consensus can be found on the role ethics plays in global sporting events. FIFA president Gianni Infantino has defended the decision to carry out the 2022 World Cup in Qatar. At a recent press conference, he accused Western nations of hypocrisy by referring to their history of colonialism and centuries of other inhumanities. Accordingly, given their historical wrongdoings, they are in no position to point the finger at human rights abuses happening in other nations now. In doing so, he made use of a form of rhetoric known as ‘Whataboutism’, which aims to expose accusers as being hypocrites, whereby they have no right to attack their opponent. When concerns about women’s rights in the host nation were expressed, he responded by asking how we can condemn Qatar for not respecting women's rights when women only gained the right to vote in Switzerland in the 1990s.  

Accepting Infantino’s argument means we must accept that nothing can be called out as wrong, or at least that wrongdoing is justified if others have done something equally wrong in the past. Migrant workers were treated badly in Qatar, but what about America’s history of slavery? What about Guantanamo? Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine is brutal but what about the history of Western imperialism?  

Two wrongs don’t make a right, as the saying goes. While an agent previously engaged in immoral acts might have lost some of their moral credibility, they are still capable of identifying wrongdoing in others. Following Infantino’s logic, humanitarian intervention would never be justifiable, because the West has done equally bad things in the past. Whataboutism can be used to justify doing nothing even in cases where an imperial war is being waged by a dictatorship in possession of nuclear weapons against a democratic, sovereign country. According to Infantino, we could not help Ukrainians, for example, who battle to survive against Russian’s brutal invasion. Accepting his argument would imply condemning the global community to inaction in the face of injustice, violence, and misery.  

The whataboutism Infantino uses to defend Qatar does more than just prevent us from criticising human rights abuses across the world. It implies that our standards of morality cannot (or should not) develop as we progress through history. As if there was no such thing as moral progress, and that we should not aim to be better today, than we were yesterday. Yes, Western states have committed atrocious crimes against humanity throughout history – but that does not mean the bar should remain low? Doesn’t seem this way to me.

An objection could be made here. That this is actually a case of moral relativism – the idea that there is no independent, objective moral standard, but rather that the validity of moral views if relative. It is therefore not possible to rank different moral systems, to say that liberal values are superior to Qatari values. Following this view, we could argue that liberal values should not be imposed on Qatar, and we ought to respect Qatari values, no matter how much they may differ from our own.

But why has there been such a backlash from players and managers in the football industry? Clearly, the moral relativism argument does not sit right with many. The rights of women and the LGBTQ+ community cannot be disregarded in a global sporting event, which surely ought to have inclusivity at its core. Publicly condemning Qatar is not only justified; for many, it is considered necessary to call out what they see as wrong.

This does not imply that you can visit a country whose values you disagree with and expect them to change their values to accommodate yours. When the Qatari ambassador called homosexuality a ‘disease of the mind’, it should have been clear to us where he stood. Eric Cantona and Phillip Lahm took a firm stance in deciding the boycott the tournament; but those who have chosen to travel the Qatar, ought to respect their rules. Moreover, people who made the decision to assign the World Cup to Qatar cannot condemn Qatari values, and expect Qatar to change their view on same-sex relationships. 

Ultimately, the 2022 World Cup has ended up as a game of politics. While Infantino and FIFA secretary general Fatma Samoura have sent out a letter urging the participating teams to “let football take centre stage” and not “get dragged into every ideological or political battle that exists”, it is the very organisation that dragged the players, trainers, and other stakeholders into this position. It is FIFA’s job to ensure the focus of this tournament remains on the sport rather than on political or cultural objectives.

This is not done by simply ignoring or dismissing any criticism that arises when choosing to host the World Cup in a country that is not inclusive. Expecting people to be silent severely underestimates the socio-political dimension of the sport.