Ever since Qatar was announced as host of the FIFA World Cup 2022, the mere idea that this nation was more deserving than its competitors has been widely ridiculed.
There were three obvious points made by the critics: one, the process happened under a demonstrably crooked leadership at FIFA. Two, Qatar was a tiny country with no value as a “development market”. And three, hot weather.
At least, those were the issues stated out loud. The first point was met with an institutional shrug: there was no point going back, and no time to start again, and the bids were good. With Qatar's bravado pledge of air-conditioned stadia (delivered), and FIFA's almost immediate decision to consider a winter Cup, the third point was dealt with more pragmatically. The mention of previous games at over 40C in Mexico in '86 and the US in '94, was also made by the more clear-headed.
But the second point, essentially how much Qatar “deserved” the tournament, is where the biggest gap in understanding appears. Most of the derision about Qatar's success came from the traditional European footballing superpowers. One in particular, England, could hardly believe that their own bid had failed. It is worth noting at this point that their bid was against Russia for 2018, not Qatar 2022, but Qatar took the brunt of media outrage anyway.
There were several arguments for Qatar 2022 that failed to embed in the European football world's consciousness. For a start, Qatar is within an hour's flight for tens of millions of people who love football. For a few million it is even in driving distance. Qatar 2022 was branded from the start as “the Arab World Cup”, for the whole region.
As a European fan whose national team qualifies regularly for major tournaments, it is easy to be dismissive of “fake” fans following other countries. But the reality is that for a vast majority of fans around the world, following the World Cup via a favourite team from another country, or even just a favourite player, is the norm. And it is this global interest that has made the likes of Spain and England so wealthy and successful in the football world, with TV rights and shirt sales globally bringing them unprecedented wealth. The sincerity and passion of this non-national following has been clear to see with popular teams like Argentina and Brazil boasting an amazing following at the tournament. Add in the extraordinary support for Morocco's progress, and the “Arab World Cup” makes a lot of sense.
Qatar delivered on all its promises for the tournament: new stadia all completed, visa-free travel for any and all ticket holders, a new transport network and amazing facilities: even some special fan zones for public drinking of alcohol. Qatar climbed a few mountains to make this tournament happen.
Again in contrast, the four new stadia that England had promised to “build regardless of the bid outcome” by 2018, are all still on the drawing board. Neither a total visa waiver for ticket holders nor free public transport was part of England 2018. Seeing the excellent support from the likes of Morocco, Senegal and Cameroon is a reminder that not all fans can take visa-free travel for granted. Qatar went the extra mile to accommodate all. Also, what were the alternative bids for 2022? The US and South Korea, who had both hosted in recent times (the US now have 2026). And Australia – a growing but modest market where football is the fifth sport, and a terrible commercial proposition because of logistics and TV scheduling. Qatar simply had the best and most interesting bid.
The elephant in the room, and what moved me to choose this oddball subject to write about, is human rights. I have argued with some of my Omani friends and colleagues about this. Some of the issues raised are real, across the GCC and beyond, and it is dishonest to pretend that they don't exist. We all know of cases of migrant workers mistreated, unpaid or just disrespected. We should look that in the eye and deal with it.
But, the likes of England and France who condemn the loudest have been very happy to participate in the tournament, leaving their governments and press tying themselves in knots: somehow they are participating and boycotting at the same time. The BBC, like a media equivalent of Shrödinger's cat, chose to broadcast a documentary on mistreatment of guest workers instead of the opening ceremony, but yet is showing all the matches it can. Various newspapers continue to cite incredible numbers of “migrant workers killed” on the front page, but with fulsome coverage of the sport on the back. Right wing tabloids are suddenly passionate advocates of LGBT expression. It is a bizarrely contradictory approach. The hyperbole is indefensible too: “over 6,000 killed” is a statistic cited again and again. That is actually the number of non-Qataris passing away from any cause since 2010 - pretty normal for the population. The actual number of those dying in workplace accidents on this mega project is three. Every one of them a tragedy, but again: one hundred and twenty-three people died in workplace accidents in the UK in the last year.
The targeting of Qatar's tournament with this kind of coverage smacks of some very unpleasant old colonial and racist attitudes. Ever since the oil boom of the 70s and 80s, the stereotype of the “oil rich Arab” double-parking his Rolls Royce on Knightsbridge and buying everything, has pervaded the Western consciousness, and with it a visceral resentment and envy. Decades later, with over 300,000 Brits alone living in the GCC now, Europe and the Gulf really should know each other better. The diversity of incomes, personalities and education levels within the GCC countries are like any other. nation But the scorn and loathing built into that caricature of the Khaleeji, endures. Some people just couldn't bear to see Qatar win this honour.
Human rights and migrant welfare are important, but Qatar probably leads the GCC on workers' welfare as a result of this tournament. The search for outrage seems motivated by something much uglier than philanthropic activism. In contrast, the opening ceremony of Russia 2018 was broadcast by the BBC. Journalists did not go to Russia encouraging fans to wave activist flags on the train and in the stadium and try to get them arrested.
Russia's attack on Ukraine four years earlier (and of Georgia two years before they won the bid), was barely mentioned, at least not during the tournament. The shooting down of a Malaysian airliner by Russian forces in Ukraine happened just days into the 2014 tournament in Brazil. I do not recall a media campaign to disqualify Russia as 2018 hosts. Nor during China's two Olympic games was there a boycott of coverage, let alone participation, despite their horrifying human rights record. It seems like this small Arab country has been given special treatment.
In the mean time, none of the loudest critics chose to boycott the tournament. They are quite happy to play, and would have been quite happy to host even after the “corrupt process”. The double standard is as ridiculous as it is ugly. So really, shut up and enjoy the football. This might be the best World Cup ever – and for everyone.
Oman Observer is now on the WhatsApp channel. Click here
