4 ms·

I think hosting the world cup in Qatar is questionable. Next to the known issues that arose in the past years, even ex-ante Qatar is not a country with a meanin

by zwaps 4y ago

I think hosting the world cup in Qatar is questionable. Next to the known issues that arose in the past years, even ex-ante Qatar is not a country with a meaningful cultural connection to Football as a sport. Of course hosting the world cup there is a farce from that standpoint. Football world cups should be hosted in countries where it's a cultural fixture and popular sport. HOWEVER, if you - as FIFA - decide to host the world cup in Qatar regardless, then you should absolutely conform to Qatar's local customs and laws. Qatar is a country where public displays of alcohol consumption, especially as practiced in European stadiums, are morally and legally not okay. It is up to FIFA, the sponsors and the guests to conform to that - as guests in said country. FIFA is free to hold the world cup in a different country.

psychphysic 4y ago
I'm ambivalent about the world cup in Qatar. I think it will be positive in encouraging loosening of the oppressive regime there. It's also unfortunately one of the more viable options in the middle east where football is THE sport of the people.* If no booze is served all that means is Muslims may be more comfortable attending. Who cares about alcohol anyways. * where else? Saudi? That'd be even worse. Turkey is ideal, but really cant afford it as inflation hits 85+%. Israel would be good but unfortunately most Arabs would struggle to travel there nor is it safe. Dubai/UAE might work, but ultimately have same issues.
- smcl 4y ago
  You're right that Turkey would've been ideal were it not for the recent financial troubles, though I wonder if a big event like the World Cup could have eliminated or at least delayed this crisis. If you look a bit further afield than just the Middle East, Egypt or Morocco (or some dual bid) may have been good options too. I think you're right to discount Israel, to be honest not just because of safety and access issues but because it's a relatively small country that can't reasonably support stadia of the size and quality required to host the World Cup. They've three ~30k seaters which is ok but the rest are absolutely tiny - to be honest even the Greater Glasgow area likely has a better selection and there's not a hope in hell of even a Scotland bid (outside there's one >60k, three around 20-22k and a dozen more 10-19k). These smaller nations would do much better to submit joint bid - most countries can afford at least a couple of white elephant stadia if they don't already have a few bigger teams that could occupy them - but with Israel, I can't think who they'd host with.
- jakear 4y ago
  Bahrain is the obvious answer IMO. They're already the Arabian party people state.
dagw 4y ago
Completely missing the point. Qatar promised FIFA that selling beer would be allowed in the stadiums and collected a lot of sponsorship money from a beer company for the rights to sell that beer. Then 48 hours before the event kicks off, and when it is far too late for anybody to change any plans, they renege on that promise. They obviously waited to the very last minute to announce this change of heart so that people couldn't react to it or change any plans. FIFA is free to hold the world cup in a different country. Not 48 hours before kick-off they're not.
- spoils19 4y ago
  I disagree. FIFA is free to stop hosting the world cup. It can't be that hard to move to another country - other countries have stadiums and regulations that suit whatever whims FIFA has at the moment. This is just the free market that HN readers love at work - perhaps there should have been some criticism of Qatar before this world cup? I haven't seen any before now.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
pjc50 4y ago
Reminder that there were only five bids: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_and_2022_FIFA_World_Cup_bids https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_and_2022_FIFA_World_Cup_b... Australia, Japan, Qatar, South Korea, United States. Out of those, Qatar paid by far the largest bribes, so that's where it's being held. Any one of the other four would have done a perfectly adequate job. There have been over six thousand migrant worker deaths in Qatar since the bid: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/feb/23/revealed-migrant-worker-deaths-qatar-fifa-world-cup-2022 https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/feb/23/r...

by zwaps 4y ago

psychphysic 4y ago

I'm ambivalent about the world cup in Qatar. I think it will be positive in encouraging loosening of the oppressive regime there. It's also unfortunately one of the more viable options in the middle east where football is THE sport of the people.* If no booze is served all that means is Muslims may be more comfortable attending. Who cares about alcohol anyways. * where else? Saudi? That'd be even worse. Turkey is ideal, but really cant afford it as inflation hits 85+%. Israel would be good but unfortunately most Arabs would struggle to travel there nor is it safe. Dubai/UAE might work, but ultimately have same issues.

smcl 4y ago
You're right that Turkey would've been ideal were it not for the recent financial troubles, though I wonder if a big event like the World Cup could have eliminated or at least delayed this crisis. If you look a bit further afield than just the Middle East, Egypt or Morocco (or some dual bid) may have been good options too. I think you're right to discount Israel, to be honest not just because of safety and access issues but because it's a relatively small country that can't reasonably support stadia of the size and quality required to host the World Cup. They've three ~30k seaters which is ok but the rest are absolutely tiny - to be honest even the Greater Glasgow area likely has a better selection and there's not a hope in hell of even a Scotland bid (outside there's one >60k, three around 20-22k and a dozen more 10-19k). These smaller nations would do much better to submit joint bid - most countries can afford at least a couple of white elephant stadia if they don't already have a few bigger teams that could occupy them - but with Israel, I can't think who they'd host with.
jakear 4y ago
Bahrain is the obvious answer IMO. They're already the Arabian party people state.

dagw 4y ago

Completely missing the point. Qatar promised FIFA that selling beer would be allowed in the stadiums and collected a lot of sponsorship money from a beer company for the rights to sell that beer. Then 48 hours before the event kicks off, and when it is far too late for anybody to change any plans, they renege on that promise. They obviously waited to the very last minute to announce this change of heart so that people couldn't react to it or change any plans. FIFA is free to hold the world cup in a different country. Not 48 hours before kick-off they're not.

spoils19 4y ago
I disagree. FIFA is free to stop hosting the world cup. It can't be that hard to move to another country - other countries have stadiums and regulations that suit whatever whims FIFA has at the moment. This is just the free market that HN readers love at work - perhaps there should have been some criticism of Qatar before this world cup? I haven't seen any before now.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

pjc50 4y ago

Reminder that there were only five bids: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_and_2022_FIFA_World_Cup_bids https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_and_2022_FIFA_World_Cup_b... Australia, Japan, Qatar, South Korea, United States. Out of those, Qatar paid by far the largest bribes, so that's where it's being held. Any one of the other four would have done a perfectly adequate job. There have been over six thousand migrant worker deaths in Qatar since the bid: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/feb/23/revealed-migrant-worker-deaths-qatar-fifa-world-cup-2022 https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/feb/23/r...