The World Cup in Qatar and its guest workers.
A subject of public debate that has accompanied us since this World Cup was awarded in 2010.
A problem to which we have turned a blind eye for far too long, only to oppose it all the more vehemently, but to no avail.
A subject, for some a reason to boycott, for others a shining example of progress and thus legitimization of the award.
It is a legitimization based on a fundamental logical error.
But let's go step by step. What is it actually about and what happened. So we'll start with a brief recap and chronology of events:
Zurich, December 2, 2010.
The 22 members of the FIFA Executive Committee meet to decide on the awarding of the 2018 and 2022 World Cups.
The result: The 2018 World Cup goes to Russia. The 2022 World Cup to Qatar. Both raise questions – especially about values and lack of respect for human rights, as well as the respective (lack of) soccer traditions in the prospective host countries.
The former is already regularly confirmed in reports by Amnesty International at the time, and is thus no stranger to the awarding process.
Qatar, May 11, 2011.
The decision to host the 2022 World Cup was accompanied from the beginning by allegations of corruption, which are now reaching their peak.
There is talk of $20 million as a small allowance for "raising the arm" to the members of the FIFA Executive Committee.
Mohamed Bin Hammam, president of the Asian confederation and FIFA presidential candidate at the time, denies all allegations of corruption against his country.
He is expelled from FIFA at the end of the month. For life. For corruption.
The World Cup, however, remains in Qatar.
Germany, November 04, 2013.
Human rights violations in Qatar are becoming more and more of a public issue. The English Guardian previously reported on deceased Nepalese guest workers.
Reason enough for Germany's highest soccer authority – the Kaiser – to put his foot down. His words, legendary to this day, "I haven't seen a single slave in Qatar!"
London, February 23, 2021
Once again, the Guardian reports on deaths on Qatar's World Cup construction sites. And for the first time publishes a concrete figure: 6,500.
Six thousand five hundred.
Virtual press conference, March 19, 2021.
FIFA President Gianni Infantino praises the human rights situation in Qatar: "We also have to look at history, where countries come from. Progress has happened, it has been noted not only by FIFA but also by international organizations. It is a process. But it can only happen through dialogue and respect."
London, September 14, 2021
Amnesty International opposes World Cup boycott. Amnesty expert Lisa Salza says the organization would rather "take advantage of the international attention."
al-Chaur, Qatar, November 20, 2022.
Qatar will play the opening match of the FIFA World Cup against Ecuador. Kickoff for what Infantino calls "the best World Cup ever."
What remains are the questions.
1. We walk over bodies
The World Cup will take place. And it will serve as a precedent. That it's not a problem for the key players when people pay with their lives for the biggest single sporting event. In the construction of soccer stadiums, hotels and other infrastructure.
The death toll varies widely – from three to more than 15,000 victims is the talk. In the end, it doesn't matter. Each one is one too many. What counts is that people are willing to walk over dead bodies.
2. We want to look only selectively
We also know that our moral condemnation is, of course, somewhat superficial. Before the World Cup was awarded to Qatar, we were hardly interested in human rights violations and working conditions there. Which is still the case in other countries with similarly precarious conditions.
3. Working conditions have improved
What sounds cynical is nevertheless based on a grain of truth. And serves as legitimation with all supporters of this tournament. Based on a reform program starting in 2020, Qatar has abolished the so-called kafala employment system and introduced a monthly minimum wage. At least on paper. The actual implementation is difficult to verify.
However, this argument – working conditions in Qatar have improved since 2010 – is central to all those who support the World Cup in Qatar and/or otherwise cooperate with the country in soccer.
Beware of cultural imperialism!
The basic idea here is perfectly understandable and in many places factually verifiable. There are numerous historical examples where an exchange of or between cultures has led to change and progress. Technically, culturally and economically.
Moreover, we – the "we" refers to our western community of values – should look at such an exchange with a little humility and reflection. Most often, this exchange takes place between two actors who are in a power imbalance. Accordingly, the line between an exchange at eye level and the imposition of values is a very thin one. Some of the most vivid examples of such "progress" based on coercion is the opening of Japan to the outside world in the 19th century – keyword gunboat policy – or the "well-intentioned" democratization of numerous countries in the 20th and 21st centuries.
That is why we must not, under any circumstances, connect the host-selection with the normative dynamic "if you want to host our World Cup, then only with our values".
However, some values are non-negotiable
Nevertheless, there are, of course, values and rights that are non-negotiable and must be respected in a World Cup and its award.
If a potential host country does not fulfill this code of values, two basic courses of action remain: either the World Cup is not awarded to this country, or the country must demonstrate sufficient progress after the award. The awarding of the World Cup to Qatar invokes the latter of the two in retrospect.
However, in the case of the World Cup and Qatar, this concept of action was flawed to a high degree, thereby setting a dangerous precedent for the future.
The fundamental problem with this type of legitimization begins with the fact that it was only advanced after the fact. When the World Cup was awarded, improving working conditions and human rights was not an issue at all. Only after a large number of alarming reports and public outrage did associations and other actors address this issue.
Accordingly, changes in Qatar itself were only implemented in response to external pressure and after thousands of people had already fallen victim to the construction and labor policies in the Gulf state.
Our associations – and FIFA in particular – have thus deprived themselves of an essential option for action: to withdraw a World Cup after it has been awarded due to drastic misconduct.
The "Lex Colombia
At this point, one should keep in mind the only precedent in this context; the 1986 World Cup did not take place in Colombia as originally planned, but in Mexico. In 1982, Colombian President Belisario Betancur had to return the hosting rights under pressure from the world public. Political and social instability – cue Pablo Escobar – and dramatic backlogs in infrastructure construction made this step necessary. The decisive factor was FIFA's list of demands, which included an ultimatum that could no longer be met.
In the context of Qatar, this precedent is emblematic of FIFA's award criteria: railroad lines and stadium capacity are more important than human rights or life.
Thus, in the case of Qatar, the lack of a criteria catalog made a withdrawal impossible. Instead, superficial adjustments took place.
So the awarding ethic has no choice but to invoke positive change after thousands of deaths.
A toxic free pass for the future
Through this methodology and logic of legitimation, a free pass was written in the end: You can basically commit whatever crime you want for now. There will be no consequences. In the worst case, one has to make superficial adjustments afterwards.
This dynamic gives rise to fears that Qatar will not be the last World Cup of its kind, with all its human and social disasters. Instead, it puts itself at the top of questionable World Cup venues that include fascist Italy, a military junta-led Argentina and a war-mongering Russia.
Ergo: one has taken away the option to really change something. Others can always point to the precedent of Qatar and argue "6,500 people died there and free speech was suppressed. What do you want from us now? We do our World Cup the way we want it".
Countries like North Korea should therefore have the best prospects in a possible bid...
So there is no question that something needs to change urgently and quickly in the award policies and criteria of the major associations:
A clear catalog of criteria from the associations, which includes not only economic and infrastructural criteria, but also fundamental social and political criteria.
A comprehensive report on these criteria by the applicant countries as part of the application. In case of non-compliance, a concept for improvement. Progress and improvements must be implemented before the vote. Not afterwards.
A strict analysis of implementation and (non)successes before and after the vote. Social and political criteria must be just as transparently assessable as economic criteria.
The definition of clear red lines. Role model: the "Causa Colombia". If certain criteria are not met, the World Cup may be withdrawn. What is needed here is transparency on the part of FIFA and a fair dialogue at eye level.
In principle, it would not be impossible to prevent a deadly World Cup like the one in Qatar in the future. But the responsibility for this lies first and foremost with FIFA.Now, of course, FIFA does not have this claim. But it is good for us to have exactly this claim. First of all, we can change more and we are also much more credible in our criticism.
Be fearless. Be focused. B42.
