14 ms·

BBC ignores World Cup opening ceremony in favour of Qatar criticism

113 points by lastdong 4y ago

hobbitstan 4y ago
- superchroma 4y ago
  "the force the public to pay for it or face jail time" That is the premise of taxes, yes. I may not get sick enough to justify a hospital visit this decade, yet I contribute to socialized healthcare all the same.
  - throw_m239339 4y ago
    > That is the premise of taxes, yes. I may not get sick enough to justify a hospital visit this decade, yet I contribute to socialized healthcare all the same. Nobody should go to jail for refusing to contribute to the local "Pravda". Governments shouldn't be in that line of business at first place. Finally it's not a tax, it's a fee.
    - seized 4y ago
      And no one has to pay it since it's a license fee. There are ways to opt out if you don't have a TV. So stop being dramatic.
      - throw_m239339 4y ago
        > And no one has to pay it since it's a license fee. There are ways to opt out if you don't have a TV. So stop being dramatic. You still have to pay it IF you have a TV. That doesn't change my first point as there is absolutely nothing "dramatic" about pointing out the dangers of a media directly controlled by the government. Stop acting like government controlled press isn't prone to manipulating their audience.
    - smcl 4y ago
      BBC is more than just BBC News. And while BBC News itself isn't perfect (in recent years under the Tories slipping to the right) it's streets ahead of the various Murdoch news outlets. It's not perfect, but it's not Pravda and describing it as such is quite ridiculous
      - throw_m239339 4y ago
        > It's not perfect, but it's not Pravda and describing it as such is quite ridiculous Of course if you agree with the BBC editorial line, you'll find nothing wrong with the BBC. Just like Fox News audience don't see any problems with Fox News bias. What is ridiculous is thinking that only Murdoch controlled media lies.
        smcl 4y ago
        I certainly don't always agree with the "BBC editorial line" - it has moved the needle against a few things that I've supported. However it is farcical to compare it to Pravda or even FOX, and I think you're showing how little exposure you've had to the BBC by doing so. > thinking that only Murdoch controlled media lies. I mentioned the various Murdoch properties because they're the most egregious and shameless. There's bias everywhere, and I never said there wasn't
        throw_m239339 4y ago
        smcl 4y ago
        And I think you're a reactionary fool if you sincerely believe BBC News belongs with Pravda and FOX. But I suspect you don't genuinely think that. I think you threw that line out as a cute little zinger and didn't believe anyone would call you out on it.
    - chrisseaton 4y ago
      > Finally it's not a tax, it's a fee. No you're mistaken - it is actually legally a tax and has been since 2006.
- b1476 4y ago
  What you’re referring to is the TV license fee and you’re not obliged to pay for it at all, you can simply opt out as outlined in the various letters you’ll receive if you don’t pay for it. It’s a deeply flawed system that many disagree with, but to say the public is forced to pay it is false.
  - jimbob45 4y ago
    Is it not voted upon?
    - smcl 4y ago
      I don't think it's unpopular enough yet to have any popular public outcry over the funding model large enough that it'd reach parliament. But BBC News has put their thumb on the scale a few times during the Conservative government, so there's a small but growing resentment of the org
    - chrisseaton 4y ago
      Politicians put their positions on the BBC in their manifestos and you can pick a representative which has the views on the BBC most similar to your own. Just like almost all other issues.
- cmeacham98 4y ago
  This claim sets of my bullshit sensor. By my understanding, the BBC license fee is only required if you get television service, if not you can opt out. You'd think if someone was unable to heat their home they wouldn't be paying for TV, and thus wouldn't have to pay the BBC tax either.
  - makerofthings 4y ago
    You need to pay a license for watching TV programs at the same time they are being broadcast on a channel or for using iplayer. I have a TV and watch Netflix, Disney+ etc. and don’t need a license.
  - marcus_holmes 4y ago
    You have to prove to the authorities that you are unable to receive a TV signal on any device in your house to avoid the BBC fee. It's not as easy as just "opting out".
    - doix 4y ago
      You fill in a form online (I think you can do it by post as well) and it's done. There is a small chance they send someone over to check. They normally show up between 9-5, so if you're at work, chances are you'll never see them to let them in. If you are home and they knock, you don't have to let them in. You can politely tell them to leave. Or you can show them your TV and that it's not hooked up to an aerial. They'll ask if you use iPlayer, you say no and they leave you alone. Source: lived in the UK, never paid for TV license. I let them in once to see what would happen.
      - marcus_holmes 4y ago
        I'm old enough to remember the TV detector vans. (I lived on the Isle of Man for a while, and the local newspaper would be alerted by the ferrymen when the van was shipped over, and run a warning for everyone to turn their TVs off for a few days). It's only easier to evade now because flat-screen TVs don't emit radio signals they can detect from the street. If enough people opt out then they'll do what they do in Germany: everyone pays it regardless of whether you have a TV or not.
- seized 4y ago
  And? Those retirees are "forced" to pay for roads they may not be able to drive on, research of all kinds they may not benefit from, education systems for children and grandchildren they may not have had, and all sorts of other things. All of those (BBC/news included) are very good things and it is insane to complain about them. Especially when the alternative is things like Fox News and Murdochs other trash propaganda companies.
  - harvey9 4y ago
    "All of those (BBC/news included) are very good things and it is insane to complain about them." That's an assertion not an argument. I disconnected and stopped paying when Jimmy Saville made posthumous headlines.
  - golemiprague 4y ago
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    > Those retirees are "forced" to pay for roads they may not be able to drive on Well no they're not because most of them don't pay tax as they're below the threshold.
  - 6510 4y ago
    I still benefit from roads eventho I rarely use them. You may not watch Fox News and Murdochs other trash propaganda companies without paying the BBC.
- hprotagonist 4y ago
  ministry of owsinge?! it was spelt like that on the van!
- MonkeyMalarky 4y ago
  It's interesting to see this comment about the BBC. It's eerily familiar to criticism of CBC in Canada, almost like a narrative is being pushed. Anyways, I trust them both way more than the junk produced by Rupert Murdoch or Conrad Black.
  - hef19898 4y ago
    Same in Germany or Austria, seems right wing populist talking points are ending up all over the world.
- sportslife 4y ago
  The BBC has a viewpoint, and that viewpoint is very critical of its own government. If you want evidence but don't want to watch any of their news programmes, I highly recommend the series W1A, in which the BBC satirizes itself as a ineffective, out-of-touch, farce that wastes the public's fees.
hfbff 4y ago
Good. This is by far the world cup I've been less excited about, both because it counts as whitewash for the Qatar government and for how corrupt FIFA is.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Fezzik 4y ago
  Seconded. I love soccer. I fondly remember waking up at 3:00 a.m. to watch many of the 1998 World Cup games. I think I have watched every single game since then. I know it is a small gesture, but I will not be watching a single match this go-round. The direct support of and kowtowing to such a corrupt government is disgusting.
  - jmclnx 4y ago
    with all the other issues in that country, I would like to see many teams hop back on the plane and say we will fly to another country, India, Australia, South America or somewhere else and compete there. Or at the very least withdraw.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- jmclnx 4y ago
  Plus the scam Qatar forced upon inBev, originally beer was suppose to be sold in the stadium, which they paid ~75m for, then in the last minute Qatar said "no beer sales in the stadium". Now I have no issues with restricting alcohol and even banning it, but with that last minute about face after taking money from that company, I think they are at least do a refund plus interest.
  - nashashmi 4y ago
    Beer lasts for a while. I don't see how there are damages and losses here. Inbev is a major supporter of Fifa. They did not give money to the Qatari govt. If anything, there is a more healthier society because kids can now go to games as well. In fact they should have announced long time ago. More people would have attended the games.
nashashmi 4y ago
- hardlianotion 4y ago
  3000 years, beg pardon?
  - hef19898 4y ago
    His a sports functionary, history is propably something he only onows from hearsay. As is math.
- zzleeper 4y ago
  Lol is that the guy who say he feels like a gay Arab that was bullied in school because he was a red head?
- hef19898 4y ago
  Wow, strong from a guy like Infantino to pretend to care about European colonialism, only to defend is cavalier attitude about human rights abuses, his greed and unfetted corruption.
- jemmyw 4y ago
  I dislike this argument because people find it so compelling. As if we should share an enormous guilt for the crimes of the elite who ruled our ancestors. The people in any place now are not the people in that place in the past. And for the most part, the only thing the masses are able to change is common thinking. Therefore, if you feel you're from a now enlightened society that once was bad, then you absolutely can criticise a society currently doing the same bad things.
  - nashashmi 4y ago
    > if you feel you're from a now enlightened society that once was bad, then you absolutely can criticise a society currently doing the same bad things. This is exactly the cavalier attitude that caused colonialists to be colonialists. They called themselves ENLIGHTENED enough to go around colonizing the world and removing them from their "barbaric" cultures. We see the same behaviors and attitudes today. Qatar has a rule against drinking and the western world does not like it. They have a rule against LGBT acts and the world doesn't like it. The Hypocrisy is not only they had the exact same rules less than a decade ago, but also they were far worse to LGBT individuals for centuries discriminating and treating them like less than human beings.
worik 4y ago
Good. I am not a fan of professional sport - another brick in the wall. Sport should be for fun IMO, not a profession.
- WastingMyTime89 4y ago
  You might not realise it but this is a classist argument. It was very popular at the beginning of the 20th century. That’s why the olympics were strictly limited to amateurs and why professionalism was banned in France during the nazi occupation. What happens when you ban professionalism is that the rich who have time to seriously train get good at sports and the poor are excluded.
  - BrandoElFollito 4y ago
    I am not for banning professionalism but to make sure you can get everything from it. Allow doping so that we get really everything from the people who decided to turn their body into a machine anyway. I do not understand why we are such hypocrites and talk about "purity" for an activity that has nothing normal in it. As for non-professional sports - I play mixed volleyball with friends and it is great. the level is average, there are very good players (who tone down their capacities) and less good ones (that try hard). We have fun and we get a beer afterwards. We even play in a business league where we are systematically last and somehow a mascot of the league. Since we will lose anyway, the other teams play fair and let us play (and try risky combinations on their side for the fun). I watch these matches with a lot of pleasure because everyone is there for the fun and get exactly nothing out of the game - except pleasure and friends.
    - doix 4y ago
      > I do not understand why we are such hypocrites and talk about "purity" for an activity that has nothing normal in it It's nothing to do with purity. If you allow doping, that means doping becomes mandatory to participate at any high level. Amateur levels will be messed up as well, because all the people that dream of going pro will dope as well. It's similar (but not the exact same) as helmets in hockey. When they weren't mandatory, nobody wore them because not having a helmet provided an advantage (better visibility). The downside was that it was easy to get a head injury and ruin your life. Unfortunately, since some were ready to take that risk, everyone was forced too.
marban 4y ago
Italy '90 was the last genuine World Cup, including an iconic logo.
seydor 4y ago
I hope someone organizes a counter-WorldCup with local teams and amateurs, because this stinks so much that it will be the worst possible epilogue to a horrible year.
intsunny 4y ago
How Switzerland continues to allow FIFA and friends to have not-for-profit status is baffling. Switzerland puts on a very pretty face and provides a very safe space for the modern western corrupt.
- MisterSandman 4y ago
  Switzerland is neutral, both in war and in the face of corruption organizations like FIFA. Pretty consistent I would say.
- piva00 4y ago
  To be honest the Swiss are pretty clear that they care mostly about keeping neutrality and money. It's the impression that the rest of the world wants to imprint unto their idea of Switzerland that gets usually shattered, they're a pretty insular country and society that just want to be kept alone and make money as best as they can.
GiorgioG 4y ago
For the first time in my life I’m ignoring the World Cup. Fuck FIFA.
ispo 4y ago
I like this action. I hope they mentioned people died while crossing to EU (and UK) too.
- lajosbacs 4y ago
  Why this whataboutism? This is completely orthogonal to what you mention.
  - ispo 4y ago
    Migration and work. Same problem, same system, two locations. So why pointing out whataboutortogonalism?
    - lajosbacs 4y ago
      Are you by any chance from the former eastern block? When you complained that a policeman beat you at a demo, the authority replied "Hmmm and they beat the black people in the US of A". Same here -- all countries have problems, but this is about Qatar and no one else.
      - ispo 4y ago
        If you open your eyes beyond the Eastern block, you will see deaths linked to migration and work in every continent.
jibe 4y ago
BBC has a duty to cover the human rights issues, but to ignore the opening ceremony seems like they are going past the line of reportage into controlling what people can choose to watch.
- dan-robertson 4y ago
  The opening ceremony and the matches aren’t part of the news organisation though? The BBC paid for broadcasting rights but they can still choose what to broadcast. I suspect that people are more interested in the games than the opening ceremony and the BBC made the right call (in so far as broadcasting the things people want to watch).
zahma 4y ago
Good for them. Not that it's bad to talk about it, and we have the BBC, The Guardian, and other investigative journalists to thank for bringing this out into the light for the past decade, but the time for action was actually a decade ago when the stories were breaking,[1] when it became clear that migrant workers were dying from heat stroke. There are probably other insidious practices, but funny thing is the public was not talking about it. When did football as an establishment grow a conscience? Has it really? When did it become fashionable to talk about FIFA's corruption? Are we prepared to actually dissolve that organization in a vat of acid and start from scratch? But really, what the hell took us so long to get fired up about this situation? Does it really take beer sales to get people invested in human rights abuses? It feels like the controversy is just another batch of rotating clickbait that will get flushed down the memory hole in a few weeks, and the systemic rot will remain. For me, the entire sport lost a lot of its glamour when the amount of money involved came to the fore. Most clubs vying for the Champion's League trophy are too big to fail now, and with it comes all the problems of economic institutions. The advertising, the scandals, the enormous egos of players and coaches alike. It's gross. In France, the national team's coach was asked why the team flew in private jets from Paris to another city in France when the high-speed trains would have sufficed. It could've been a good PR opportunity for the country since these athletes -- no, people -- are revered. The coach scoffed and joked they would row to the next tournament abroad. These people are detached from reality, and it is because society elevated these personalities to demigod status. Football has become simply one more utopian refuge of escape. I remember the sport in a purer form from 20 years ago. Maybe that is nostalgia, and maybe I'm foolish for remembering the innocent form of the sport. Sure, the biggest European clubs were already approaching billion dollar values, but now it feels filthy and sick. Clubs are like mercenary squads, and the sport feels like a convenient advertising and money-laundering vehicle for oligarchs and authoritarians. 1- https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/oct/07/sudden-deaths-of-hundreds-of-migrant-workers-in-qatar-not-investigated https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/oct/07/s...
- seydor 4y ago
  The worst bit is that football is literally poor people's sport around the world. FIFA has a responsibility to bring the popular sport everywhere , especially in the developing world. This is bringing it to a petrocountry taking advantage of the poor. The worst defense of Qatar that i 've heard was defending the uber-rich country on grounds of anti-europeanism. EDIT: i got it mixed up, it was not from taleb but from Branko Milanovic: https://twitter.com/BrankoMilan/status/1593479684754444288 https://twitter.com/BrankoMilan/status/1593479684754444288
albertopv 4y ago
This is most corrupted world cup ever, that's enough for me, I'll not watch it.

113 points by lastdong 4y ago

superchroma 4y ago
"the force the public to pay for it or face jail time" That is the premise of taxes, yes. I may not get sick enough to justify a hospital visit this decade, yet I contribute to socialized healthcare all the same.
- throw_m239339 4y ago
  > That is the premise of taxes, yes. I may not get sick enough to justify a hospital visit this decade, yet I contribute to socialized healthcare all the same. Nobody should go to jail for refusing to contribute to the local "Pravda". Governments shouldn't be in that line of business at first place. Finally it's not a tax, it's a fee.
  - seized 4y ago
    And no one has to pay it since it's a license fee. There are ways to opt out if you don't have a TV. So stop being dramatic.
    - throw_m239339 4y ago
      > And no one has to pay it since it's a license fee. There are ways to opt out if you don't have a TV. So stop being dramatic. You still have to pay it IF you have a TV. That doesn't change my first point as there is absolutely nothing "dramatic" about pointing out the dangers of a media directly controlled by the government. Stop acting like government controlled press isn't prone to manipulating their audience.
  - smcl 4y ago
    BBC is more than just BBC News. And while BBC News itself isn't perfect (in recent years under the Tories slipping to the right) it's streets ahead of the various Murdoch news outlets. It's not perfect, but it's not Pravda and describing it as such is quite ridiculous
    - throw_m239339 4y ago
      > It's not perfect, but it's not Pravda and describing it as such is quite ridiculous Of course if you agree with the BBC editorial line, you'll find nothing wrong with the BBC. Just like Fox News audience don't see any problems with Fox News bias. What is ridiculous is thinking that only Murdoch controlled media lies.
      - smcl 4y ago
        I certainly don't always agree with the "BBC editorial line" - it has moved the needle against a few things that I've supported. However it is farcical to compare it to Pravda or even FOX, and I think you're showing how little exposure you've had to the BBC by doing so. > thinking that only Murdoch controlled media lies. I mentioned the various Murdoch properties because they're the most egregious and shameless. There's bias everywhere, and I never said there wasn't
        throw_m239339 4y ago
        smcl 4y ago
        And I think you're a reactionary fool if you sincerely believe BBC News belongs with Pravda and FOX. But I suspect you don't genuinely think that. I think you threw that line out as a cute little zinger and didn't believe anyone would call you out on it.
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    > Finally it's not a tax, it's a fee. No you're mistaken - it is actually legally a tax and has been since 2006.
b1476 4y ago
What you’re referring to is the TV license fee and you’re not obliged to pay for it at all, you can simply opt out as outlined in the various letters you’ll receive if you don’t pay for it. It’s a deeply flawed system that many disagree with, but to say the public is forced to pay it is false.
- jimbob45 4y ago
  Is it not voted upon?
  - smcl 4y ago
    I don't think it's unpopular enough yet to have any popular public outcry over the funding model large enough that it'd reach parliament. But BBC News has put their thumb on the scale a few times during the Conservative government, so there's a small but growing resentment of the org
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    Politicians put their positions on the BBC in their manifestos and you can pick a representative which has the views on the BBC most similar to your own. Just like almost all other issues.
cmeacham98 4y ago
This claim sets of my bullshit sensor. By my understanding, the BBC license fee is only required if you get television service, if not you can opt out. You'd think if someone was unable to heat their home they wouldn't be paying for TV, and thus wouldn't have to pay the BBC tax either.
- makerofthings 4y ago
  You need to pay a license for watching TV programs at the same time they are being broadcast on a channel or for using iplayer. I have a TV and watch Netflix, Disney+ etc. and don’t need a license.
- marcus_holmes 4y ago
  You have to prove to the authorities that you are unable to receive a TV signal on any device in your house to avoid the BBC fee. It's not as easy as just "opting out".
  - doix 4y ago
    You fill in a form online (I think you can do it by post as well) and it's done. There is a small chance they send someone over to check. They normally show up between 9-5, so if you're at work, chances are you'll never see them to let them in. If you are home and they knock, you don't have to let them in. You can politely tell them to leave. Or you can show them your TV and that it's not hooked up to an aerial. They'll ask if you use iPlayer, you say no and they leave you alone. Source: lived in the UK, never paid for TV license. I let them in once to see what would happen.
    - marcus_holmes 4y ago
      I'm old enough to remember the TV detector vans. (I lived on the Isle of Man for a while, and the local newspaper would be alerted by the ferrymen when the van was shipped over, and run a warning for everyone to turn their TVs off for a few days). It's only easier to evade now because flat-screen TVs don't emit radio signals they can detect from the street. If enough people opt out then they'll do what they do in Germany: everyone pays it regardless of whether you have a TV or not.
seized 4y ago
And? Those retirees are "forced" to pay for roads they may not be able to drive on, research of all kinds they may not benefit from, education systems for children and grandchildren they may not have had, and all sorts of other things. All of those (BBC/news included) are very good things and it is insane to complain about them. Especially when the alternative is things like Fox News and Murdochs other trash propaganda companies.
- harvey9 4y ago
  "All of those (BBC/news included) are very good things and it is insane to complain about them." That's an assertion not an argument. I disconnected and stopped paying when Jimmy Saville made posthumous headlines.
- golemiprague 4y ago
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  > Those retirees are "forced" to pay for roads they may not be able to drive on Well no they're not because most of them don't pay tax as they're below the threshold.
- 6510 4y ago
  I still benefit from roads eventho I rarely use them. You may not watch Fox News and Murdochs other trash propaganda companies without paying the BBC.
hprotagonist 4y ago
ministry of owsinge?! it was spelt like that on the van!
MonkeyMalarky 4y ago
It's interesting to see this comment about the BBC. It's eerily familiar to criticism of CBC in Canada, almost like a narrative is being pushed. Anyways, I trust them both way more than the junk produced by Rupert Murdoch or Conrad Black.
- hef19898 4y ago
  Same in Germany or Austria, seems right wing populist talking points are ending up all over the world.
sportslife 4y ago
The BBC has a viewpoint, and that viewpoint is very critical of its own government. If you want evidence but don't want to watch any of their news programmes, I highly recommend the series W1A, in which the BBC satirizes itself as a ineffective, out-of-touch, farce that wastes the public's fees.

Good. This is by far the world cup I've been less excited about, both because it counts as whitewash for the Qatar government and for how corrupt FIFA is.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Fezzik 4y ago
Seconded. I love soccer. I fondly remember waking up at 3:00 a.m. to watch many of the 1998 World Cup games. I think I have watched every single game since then. I know it is a small gesture, but I will not be watching a single match this go-round. The direct support of and kowtowing to such a corrupt government is disgusting.
- jmclnx 4y ago
  with all the other issues in that country, I would like to see many teams hop back on the plane and say we will fly to another country, India, Australia, South America or somewhere else and compete there. Or at the very least withdraw.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jmclnx 4y ago
Plus the scam Qatar forced upon inBev, originally beer was suppose to be sold in the stadium, which they paid ~75m for, then in the last minute Qatar said "no beer sales in the stadium". Now I have no issues with restricting alcohol and even banning it, but with that last minute about face after taking money from that company, I think they are at least do a refund plus interest.
- nashashmi 4y ago
  Beer lasts for a while. I don't see how there are damages and losses here. Inbev is a major supporter of Fifa. They did not give money to the Qatari govt. If anything, there is a more healthier society because kids can now go to games as well. In fact they should have announced long time ago. More people would have attended the games.

nashashmi 4y ago

hardlianotion 4y ago
3000 years, beg pardon?
- hef19898 4y ago
  His a sports functionary, history is propably something he only onows from hearsay. As is math.
zzleeper 4y ago
Lol is that the guy who say he feels like a gay Arab that was bullied in school because he was a red head?
hef19898 4y ago
Wow, strong from a guy like Infantino to pretend to care about European colonialism, only to defend is cavalier attitude about human rights abuses, his greed and unfetted corruption.
jemmyw 4y ago
I dislike this argument because people find it so compelling. As if we should share an enormous guilt for the crimes of the elite who ruled our ancestors. The people in any place now are not the people in that place in the past. And for the most part, the only thing the masses are able to change is common thinking. Therefore, if you feel you're from a now enlightened society that once was bad, then you absolutely can criticise a society currently doing the same bad things.
- nashashmi 4y ago
  > if you feel you're from a now enlightened society that once was bad, then you absolutely can criticise a society currently doing the same bad things. This is exactly the cavalier attitude that caused colonialists to be colonialists. They called themselves ENLIGHTENED enough to go around colonizing the world and removing them from their "barbaric" cultures. We see the same behaviors and attitudes today. Qatar has a rule against drinking and the western world does not like it. They have a rule against LGBT acts and the world doesn't like it. The Hypocrisy is not only they had the exact same rules less than a decade ago, but also they were far worse to LGBT individuals for centuries discriminating and treating them like less than human beings.

worik 4y ago

Good. I am not a fan of professional sport - another brick in the wall. Sport should be for fun IMO, not a profession.

WastingMyTime89 4y ago
You might not realise it but this is a classist argument. It was very popular at the beginning of the 20th century. That’s why the olympics were strictly limited to amateurs and why professionalism was banned in France during the nazi occupation. What happens when you ban professionalism is that the rich who have time to seriously train get good at sports and the poor are excluded.
- BrandoElFollito 4y ago
  I am not for banning professionalism but to make sure you can get everything from it. Allow doping so that we get really everything from the people who decided to turn their body into a machine anyway. I do not understand why we are such hypocrites and talk about "purity" for an activity that has nothing normal in it. As for non-professional sports - I play mixed volleyball with friends and it is great. the level is average, there are very good players (who tone down their capacities) and less good ones (that try hard). We have fun and we get a beer afterwards. We even play in a business league where we are systematically last and somehow a mascot of the league. Since we will lose anyway, the other teams play fair and let us play (and try risky combinations on their side for the fun). I watch these matches with a lot of pleasure because everyone is there for the fun and get exactly nothing out of the game - except pleasure and friends.
  - doix 4y ago
    > I do not understand why we are such hypocrites and talk about "purity" for an activity that has nothing normal in it It's nothing to do with purity. If you allow doping, that means doping becomes mandatory to participate at any high level. Amateur levels will be messed up as well, because all the people that dream of going pro will dope as well. It's similar (but not the exact same) as helmets in hockey. When they weren't mandatory, nobody wore them because not having a helmet provided an advantage (better visibility). The downside was that it was easy to get a head injury and ruin your life. Unfortunately, since some were ready to take that risk, everyone was forced too.

marban 4y ago

Italy '90 was the last genuine World Cup, including an iconic logo.

seydor 4y ago

I hope someone organizes a counter-WorldCup with local teams and amateurs, because this stinks so much that it will be the worst possible epilogue to a horrible year.

intsunny 4y ago

How Switzerland continues to allow FIFA and friends to have not-for-profit status is baffling. Switzerland puts on a very pretty face and provides a very safe space for the modern western corrupt.

MisterSandman 4y ago
Switzerland is neutral, both in war and in the face of corruption organizations like FIFA. Pretty consistent I would say.
piva00 4y ago
To be honest the Swiss are pretty clear that they care mostly about keeping neutrality and money. It's the impression that the rest of the world wants to imprint unto their idea of Switzerland that gets usually shattered, they're a pretty insular country and society that just want to be kept alone and make money as best as they can.

GiorgioG 4y ago

For the first time in my life I’m ignoring the World Cup. Fuck FIFA.

ispo 4y ago

I like this action. I hope they mentioned people died while crossing to EU (and UK) too.

lajosbacs 4y ago
Why this whataboutism? This is completely orthogonal to what you mention.
- ispo 4y ago
  Migration and work. Same problem, same system, two locations. So why pointing out whataboutortogonalism?
  - lajosbacs 4y ago
    Are you by any chance from the former eastern block? When you complained that a policeman beat you at a demo, the authority replied "Hmmm and they beat the black people in the US of A". Same here -- all countries have problems, but this is about Qatar and no one else.
    - ispo 4y ago
      If you open your eyes beyond the Eastern block, you will see deaths linked to migration and work in every continent.

jibe 4y ago

BBC has a duty to cover the human rights issues, but to ignore the opening ceremony seems like they are going past the line of reportage into controlling what people can choose to watch.

dan-robertson 4y ago
The opening ceremony and the matches aren’t part of the news organisation though? The BBC paid for broadcasting rights but they can still choose what to broadcast. I suspect that people are more interested in the games than the opening ceremony and the BBC made the right call (in so far as broadcasting the things people want to watch).

zahma 4y ago

Good for them. Not that it's bad to talk about it, and we have the BBC, The Guardian, and other investigative journalists to thank for bringing this out into the light for the past decade, but the time for action was actually a decade ago when the stories were breaking,[1] when it became clear that migrant workers were dying from heat stroke. There are probably other insidious practices, but funny thing is the public was not talking about it. When did football as an establishment grow a conscience? Has it really? When did it become fashionable to talk about FIFA's corruption? Are we prepared to actually dissolve that organization in a vat of acid and start from scratch? But really, what the hell took us so long to get fired up about this situation? Does it really take beer sales to get people invested in human rights abuses? It feels like the controversy is just another batch of rotating clickbait that will get flushed down the memory hole in a few weeks, and the systemic rot will remain. For me, the entire sport lost a lot of its glamour when the amount of money involved came to the fore. Most clubs vying for the Champion's League trophy are too big to fail now, and with it comes all the problems of economic institutions. The advertising, the scandals, the enormous egos of players and coaches alike. It's gross. In France, the national team's coach was asked why the team flew in private jets from Paris to another city in France when the high-speed trains would have sufficed. It could've been a good PR opportunity for the country since these athletes -- no, people -- are revered. The coach scoffed and joked they would row to the next tournament abroad. These people are detached from reality, and it is because society elevated these personalities to demigod status. Football has become simply one more utopian refuge of escape. I remember the sport in a purer form from 20 years ago. Maybe that is nostalgia, and maybe I'm foolish for remembering the innocent form of the sport. Sure, the biggest European clubs were already approaching billion dollar values, but now it feels filthy and sick. Clubs are like mercenary squads, and the sport feels like a convenient advertising and money-laundering vehicle for oligarchs and authoritarians. 1- https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/oct/07/sudden-deaths-of-hundreds-of-migrant-workers-in-qatar-not-investigated https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/oct/07/s...

seydor 4y ago
The worst bit is that football is literally poor people's sport around the world. FIFA has a responsibility to bring the popular sport everywhere , especially in the developing world. This is bringing it to a petrocountry taking advantage of the poor. The worst defense of Qatar that i 've heard was defending the uber-rich country on grounds of anti-europeanism. EDIT: i got it mixed up, it was not from taleb but from Branko Milanovic: https://twitter.com/BrankoMilan/status/1593479684754444288 https://twitter.com/BrankoMilan/status/1593479684754444288

albertopv 4y ago

This is most corrupted world cup ever, that's enough for me, I'll not watch it.