Sports

Donald Trump Featured Immigration Mexico and Latin America Sports United States

FIFA World Cup 2026: Politics Off the Pitch

As Canada, Mexico, and the United States prepare to host the 2026 FIFA World Cup tournament this summer, the international community braces for what could potentially be one of the most controversial international sporting events in recent memory. Sports have historically been a medium for cross-cultural exchange and a tool for transcending political divisions through healthy competition. While there is ongoing debate over whether international sporting events can ever be free of political intervention, there is no doubt that some competitions on the field are more politicized than others.

The FIFA World Cup is an international soccer (“footbal” for those abroad) tournament that brings together national teams from around the globe to compete every four years. Since the inaugural tournament in 1930, the World Cup has grown from a meager 13-team competition to now include 48 teams competing in over a hundred matches.

Nearing its centennial anniversary in 2030, the World Cup has had a number of notable instances of politics intersecting with competition on the field. The second ever World Cup, hosted by Italy in 1934, is largely remembered as a propaganda campaign to glorify Mussolini’s fascist party. The host country went on to win the tournament despite reports of the regime handpicking referees for Italy’s matches, leading to a number of controversial results. Similarly, the 1978 World Cup in Argentina brought international attention to the host country government’s human rights abuses involving thousands of political prisoners. In a powerful display of protest, the Dutch team opted to participate in a local protest of Argentina’s junta regime rather than receive their runner-up medals following the final match. Most recently, in preparation for hosting the latest World Cup in 2022, Qatar found itself at the center of controversy over its mistreatment of thousands of migrant workers and other vulnerable groups. Clearly, politics have long conflicted with the image of neutrality that FIFA strives to uphold.

Much of the narrative leading up to the 2026 FIFA World Cup centers around the implications of several controversial policies of the United States. While international sporting events like the FIFA World Cup are meant to unite people from diverse backgrounds, the United States government is arguably using the event, instead, to promote a divisive domestic and foreign policy agenda.

The Trump administration’s domestic immigration enforcement and involvement in World Cup planning and communications is creating uncertainty for fans hoping to attend games in the United States this summer. First, World Cup fans are at risk of implicating themselves in the Trump administration’s accelerated crackdown on undocumented immigration. The expanded operations of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and its increasing presence in American cities is concerning for both international and domestic soccer fans. Protests over the heavy presence of ICE agents in Minneapolis have led to federal agents fatally shooting two American citizens. Additionally, the Trump administration has boasted that ICE will not rule out conducting raids during official World Cup events. Violence and chaos caused by the increased ICE presence in American cities and protests in response have contributed to fans’ trepidations about attending matches this summer. Also, President Trump has suggested relocating World Cup matches scheduled to be held in cities like Boston and Seattle. The administration has seemingly targeted these cities for political reasons, with President Trump using the terms “radical left” and “communist” to describe each city’s respective mayor. Despite these rebukes, it seems unlikely that the Trump administration will have the authority to relocate matches as the host sites are contracted directly with FIFA. While this may not seem like an immediate threat to the sanctity of tournament play, it represents the Trump administration’s willingness to use seemingly apolitical opportunities as “culture war” tools to shape global perceptions of the United States.

The 2026 FIFA World Cup will also be the first time the tournament is hosted by three countries, with matches taking place in Canada, Mexico, and the United States. Trilateral cooperation between the host countries is crucial for the successful execution of World Cup events. However, recent U.S. foreign policy decisions have jeopardized relationships with its neighbors to the north and south.

Recent tensions between the United States and Mexico are largely related to transactional drug enforcement policies and threats of military force. In a recent interview, President Trump claimed that he would begin targeting drug cartels with land strikes in Mexico. The Mexican President has repeatedly made clear that they will not tolerate any unilateral U.S. military operations in Mexico. In apparent attempts to appease the United States, the Mexican government has begun handing over suspected cartel members to the U.S. and recently conducted an operation killing a cartel leader in Mexico. However, it remains unclear how the United States will react to Mexico’s attempts at drug enforcement. The recent U.S. strike on Venezuela and the abduction of President Maduro, widely considered to be violations of international law, have left many countries in Latin America in fear that they may be the next target for the United States’ military aggression. Meanwhile, polling suggests that over 80% of Mexicans are opposed to any U.S. military action on Mexican soil. The United States’ aggressive drug enforcement policy and rhetoric, and unilateral military action in the region is seen by many as a potential threat to Mexico’s sovereignty and self-determination.

The United States has also initiated tense relations with Canada surrounding its trade policies and threats to Canada’s territorial integrity. First, the Trump administration’s tariff policies have caused a rift in the United States’ relationship with a long-time trade partner in Canada. Leading up to the imposition of American tariffs on Canada, roughly 75% of Canadian exports went to the U.S. However, these tariffs have reduced Canadian exports to the U.S. by about 10%, forcing Canada to develop alternate trade relations and abandon well-established supply chains with the U.S. These trade policies represent a clear trend of U.S. protectionism that is forcing allies to look elsewhere for cooperative economic relations.

However, the Trump administration’s divisive trade policies may not even be the most urgent threat to Canada. President Trump has repeatedly made comments about annexing Canada as the “51st state,” even in the presence of Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney. The President has also referred to former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as “governor” of the “Great State of Canada.” In response to U.S. tariffs and threats on the territorial integrity of foreign countries, Prime Minister Carney directly challenged the policies of the Trump administration with his speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos. In his speech, Carney described the new world order in which “great powers” like the U.S. have abandoned their commitments to international institutions and norms in exchange for pursuing their interests through unilateral coercive action. The Trump administration’s actions and the responses from other world leaders suggest a growing fracture in the United States’ relationships with its neighbors.

While these divisive actions absolutely raise alarm bells for those in the political sphere, they will likely also have ripple effects for the common World Cup fan. For fans travelling a long way to attend World Cup events, the last thing they want is for their experience to be overshadowed by political drama. For fans from Mexico and Canada, the looming prospect of United States interventionism threatens to draw attention away from their team’s performance on the field. In a recent poll, 48% of Canadian adults indicated that they believe the U.S. represents the biggest threat to world peace, compared to only 29% choosing Russia and 10% picking China. The divisive rhetoric spewed by the Trump administration does not provide fans with any hope for camaraderie between the host countries in this summer’s events.

Not only have the Trump administration’s policies put the United States’ neighbors on high alert, but they have warned all international fans about the upcoming World Cup. First, the U.S. has implemented visa restrictions and travel bans limiting the entry of people from 39 different countries, including four countries whose teams will be playing in the 2026 World Cup: Haiti, Iran, Senegal, and Cote d’Ivoire. These restrictive travel bans have been harshly criticized by international fans who hope to watch their teams play at the World Cup this summer. Although Haiti qualified for the World Cup for the first time in over 50 years, most Haitian supporters will be unable to watch their team play in the U.S. because of the current travel restrictions. These restrictive travel regulations have already impacted World Cup proceedings as the Iranian delegation threatened to boycott the World Cup group draw in Washington, D.C. after the U.S. denied visas to certain members of its soccer federation. Clearly, travel bans and visa restrictions could impact both the fan experience and the capacity for intergovernmental cooperation in executing World Cup events.

Amassed international concerns have caused backlash against the United States and fears about a potentially hostile fan experience at the World Cup. In a recent statement, ex-FIFA president Sepp Blatter expressed his support for a proposed fan boycott of World Cup matches held in the U.S. He joins a community of international fans who are considering watching the World Cup events from home amidst growing uncertainty about safety and security.

Given the international controversy surrounding United States foreign and domestic policy under the Trump administration, it isn’t at all clear whether the 2026 FIFA World Cup will be an event that fosters unity. Sadly, the event may prove to be another example of recent U.S. catalysts for divisiveness and anxiety. When left uninhibited, sports have the power to unite people from diverse backgrounds. However, it is apparent that politics often injects itself into international sporting events like the World Cup. It is the responsibility of governments not to weaponize sporting events for their own political gains. Ultimately, the world will judge the outcome of the tournament not by the actions of politicians, or even the outcomes of the matches played, but by who is welcomed to safely participate.

Image source: openverse

April 1, 2026 0 comment

Diplomacy Sports

Basketball Diplomacy: The International Impact of the NBA

written by Charlie Donlan

I. Introduction

The Most Valuable Player award in the National Basketball Association, a league that has historically been dominated by players born in the United States, has been awarded to a foreign-born player in each of the past six seasons. The rising globalization of sports in the 21^st century is not unique to basketball, as similar trends have emerged in baseball, soccer, and across the landscape of sports. Given the trend of sports globalization, two questions are raised: (1) What caused the rapid rate of globalization we are experiencing in the 21^st century, and (2) What implications does the globalization of sports have on international relations?

II. Shifting NBA Demographics as a Reflection of the Times

The globalization of the NBA began with the players themselves, who then generated shifts in fanbases. The NBA consisted of almost entirely American-born players up until the early 1980s when players like Hakeem Olajuwon and Patrick Ewing entered the league. Although players like Ewing and Olajuwon achieved historic success and broke down barriers for international players to follow, they rose to stardom through the American collegiate basketball system before entering the league. This was a common theme for most foreign-born players in the NBA up until the late 1990s and early 2000s.

In 1994, the NBA appointed David Stern as the league commissioner; he would serve for the next 20 years. Stern understood the importance of expanding the NBA’s influence abroad more than anyone who held the position before him. Stern made his position on the NBA’s expansion very clear, saying, “There are 250 million potential NBA fans in the U.S., and there are 5 billion outside the U.S. … We like those numbers.” The new commissioner not only set ambitious goals for the league going forward but also delivered on them.

Following the appointment of David Stern as commissioner in the 1990s, the NBA used several strategic policies in order to encourage global expansion. One of these policies included giving international players who come from countries with large consumer markets, like China, preferential treatment and payment. In 2001, the NBA helped create the Basketball Without Borders program, which seeks to develop young international talent by holding camps for players age 18 and younger from all over the world. These camps include basketball training sessions as well as seminars and workshops teaching campers important life skills. The NBA, heavily invested in finding the next generation of basketball talent, is simultaneously helping the international youth develop skills that will make them successful off the court.

The growth of the NBA’s international player pool beginning in the late 1990s was seemingly exponential. The 1998-1999 season saw 30 international players on NBA rosters. Just two years later, the number of foreign-born NBA players had nearly doubled to 57, and by the 2007-2008 season, that number had nearly doubled again to 109 players. Finally, the most recent season saw 125 international players from 40 different countries represented on NBA opening-night rosters. Clearly, there has been a steep upward trend in the NBA’s international player presence since the turn of the century.

In order to understand how this rapid globalization of sports has occurred, it is important to analyze these trends in the broader context of the international political economy. In the early 1980s, around the same time that the NBA first began to expand globally, the political and economic doctrines of neoliberalism were adopted by several Western leaders. Neoliberalism is an extreme form of free market capitalism that was pioneered by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher in the early 1980s and involved reducing government regulation and other barriers to international trade. While critics point out the detrimental impacts these economic policies have had on the developing world, neoliberalism gave corporations, like the NBA, financial incentives to expand overseas.

III. The “Soft Power” Achieved on the Court

The globalization of the NBA has given the United States an incredibly valuable platform to display the country’s excellence on the world stage. There are countless examples of nations boasting their military power, technological advancement, resource abundance, or wealth in order to show their superiority or strength internationally. However, the NBA functions as a more unconventional diplomatic tool for the United States to advance its foreign policy standing through “soft power.” The idea of “soft power” is when countries use persuasive strategies that glorify certain aspects of their culture in order to spread their influence. While the aforementioned “conventional” strategies of diplomacy involve coercive methods meant to demonstrate disparities between countries, the strategies of “soft power” often invoke acceptance and camaraderie through the celebration of cultural excellence. This is nowhere more evident than in the growth in international recognition of NBA stars.

The “soft power” associated with the NBA can largely be traced back to the 1992 Olympic Games in Barcelona. Up until 1992, the United States was not allowed to send NBA players to the Olympic Games, which had long been considered a competition for amateur athletes. After a disappointing performance from the United States Men’s National Team in the 1988 games, there was a push for the International Basketball Federation (FIBA) to level the playing field and allow NBA players to compete against professionals from other countries. When FIBA voted to allow NBA players to compete in the 1992 Olympic Games, the stage was set for the NBA to be displayed in front of an international audience. The 1992 United States Men’s Olympic Basketball Team, otherwise known as the “Dream Team,” will go down in history as one of the greatest sports teams ever assembled. Comprised of some of the biggest stars the NBA has ever seen, including Michael Jordan, the “Dream Team” went on to win the gold medal at the 1992 Olympics and set a precedent of basketball excellence that is associated with the NBA today.

The influence of the “Dream Team” went beyond just basketball. The worldwide recognition of the NBA stars on the “Dream Team” was utilized by the United States to advance its cultural influence abroad. In 2023, Dirk Nowitski, Pau Gasol, and Tony Parker, widely considered to be three of the most influential international players of all time, were inducted into the Basketball Hall of Fame. All three of these players credit the performance of the “Dream Team” at the 1992 Olympic Games as an inspiration to pursue their dreams of being in the NBA. The German basketball legend Dirk Nowitski explains the impact of the 1992 Olympic U.S. Men’s Basketball team on his career: “I had just started playing basketball in ’90, ’91…I was about 12, 13. I was just starting to be an NBA fan. MJ just won his first championship in ’91. Then, ’92 happens, and I remember I was watching every game. It had a huge impact on me, and I wanted to be like these guys, and I wanted to be in the NBA. That was a huge moment.” Just like Nowitski grew up idolizing NBA greats like Michael Jordan, a whole generation of young athletes grew up idolizing Nowitski. In 2013, the Oklahoma City Thunder’s German point guard Dennis Schröder commented on Dirk’s impact on his generation of players, saying “I think every player, every German player, looks up to him.” Clearly, the impact of the “Dream Team” on young people in the early 1990s started a chain reaction. Young people from all corners of the world will continue to draw inspiration from the greatness of NBA players, especially players who represent their home country. The “soft power” of basketball has created an interest in the now global National Basketball Association.

IV. The NBA as a Catalyst for the Spread of American Ideals

Not only did the globalization of the NBA increase international interest in American sports culture, but it also added new consumers to the American capitalist economy. Following the 1992 Olympic Games, Michael Jordan became a household name and a global commodity in his own right. Jordan was marketed alongside iconic American brands like Nike, Coca Cola, and McDonald’s, which essentially monetized his excellence on the court for the benefit of the United States economy. By associating its stars with huge multinational corporations in the food, beverage, and apparel industries, the NBA was able to create a marketing system that pushed American consumerism into untapped markets.

The NBA also markets its star athletes to international audiences in order to push the idea that the American dream is achievable through sports. A great example of this kind of marketing is Nike’s 2019 ad celebrating Giannis Antetokounmpo, an NBA superstar from Greece and the MVP of the league that season. The ad uses images and video footage to depict Giannis’ rise from when he “lived in a single room with his entire family” to being “crowned the 2019 MVP.” The ad ends with the words, “It’s only crazy until you do it,” followed by Nike’s signature slogan, “Just do it.” The marketing strategies used in commercials like this attempt to disseminate the idea that the NBA, like America, is a meritocracy where hard work is rewarded no matter where you come from. Regardless of whether these appeals to the international community’s hope for a better life are motivated by corporate profits, the message encourages people to better themselves. Clearly, there is a way for the capitalist system to simultaneously serve business interests and the betterment of humanity.

The NBA has even been able to build diplomatic bridges with countries that are considered adversaries to American democracy. One such country is North Korea. In 2015, a group of American basketball players, including NBA legend Dennis Rodman, were invited to participate in a “foreign sports exchange program” in Pyongyang. The trip included an exhibition game with mixed teams consisting of Harlem Globetrotters and members of the North Korean Men’s National Basketball Team playing alongside one another. More importantly, the game was observed by thousands of North Korean fans, including the country’s leader, Kim Jong Un, who was seated next to Dennis Rodman for the entirety of the game. Following the game, Dennis Rodman spoke to the crowd and declared that while the United States and North Korea may not be “on good terms,” he considers Kim Jong Un a “friend for life.” The North Korean dictator even invited the group of Americans to dinner afterwards, where he and other North Korean ministers expressed their hopes that the exchange would “promote understanding between the peoples of the two countries.” While the legitimacy of the North Korean leader’s words are often brought into question, the camaraderie shared by the players on the court cannot be denied. The fact that a former NBA player and two Harlem Globetrotters were the first Americans to ever meet a dictator who stands as one of America’s biggest ideological adversaries is a testament to basketball’s unique ability to transcend politics.

V. The Future of the NBA and Sports Diplomacy

In the 21^st century, we are just now seeing the full effects of the globalization that began with the rise of neoliberalism in the 1980s. The NBA’s goals of expansion, which first began to show results in the early 1990s, continue to gain support from the international community. The increasing success of foreign players in the past 20 years is a testament to the NBA’s investment in developing international talent. The more basketball infrastructure and development programs that are created internationally, the more the NBA’s talent pool will continue to grow.

As the NBA and the sport of basketball continue to grow in popularity, the mixing of diverse cultures will become more and more salient. In order to continue advancing American foreign policy interests throughout the 21^stcentury, the United States should continue to invest in global sports development. Not only does international sports development grow the American economy, but it also provides a common ground for people of all different backgrounds to come together. Unlike international competitions over geopolitical, military, or technological power, the competitions that take place on the basketball court have a level playing field where everyone is subject to the same rules. Ultimately, sports bring out the best in people, and fostering international inclusion brings out the best in sports.

Image source: Unsplash

October 28, 2024 346 comments

Image from Wikimedia Commons. https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2022_FIFA_World_Cup_Qatar_0%E2%80%932_Ecuador_-_%281%29.jpg.

Featured Geopolitics Human Rights Sports

Your Geopolitical Primer for the 2022 World Cup

written by Ben Chlarson

The 2022 World Cup is now just days away. As one of the largest and most watched sporting events across the globe–sports, nationalism, commerce, and diplomacy remain inextricably linked to the tournament. Extreme costs incurred by taxpayers, security issues, and corruption have long been controversial aspects of the host selection process and the preparations for the event. However, the build-up to this year’s tournament has been especially mired by controversy with rampant human rights abuses and lurking geopolitical tensions. Even FIFA’s original decision in 2010 to name Qatar the host country was met with a clamor of criticism. Qatar’s team had never previously qualified for the World Cup, and many questioned why the tiny gulf nation that endures extreme heat and has a population of less than 3 million was ever selected to be the host.

The biggest controversy in the run-up however, has been the criticism against Qatar for its restriction of personal liberties and its shoddy track record of human rights. The exploitation of migrant workers in Qatar has been widespread since the mid-20th century when the Kafala labor sponsorship system first emerged, but the World Cup coming to Qatar has only further highlighted this exploitative system. So while Qatar had originally viewed the World Cup as an opportunity to increase its international stature and gain influence with powerful partners, they are now facing various struggles to actualize their soft power goals. As the tournament draws near, it is apparent that these lofty ambitions may have backfired for them. So how and why did Qatar get selected as the host country in the first place?

The answer comes down to two simple facts. First, on the side of FIFA, the Middle East presents itself as a lucrative investment opportunity to reach new audiences and increase revenues, with Qatar’s deep pockets making it a desirable partner in these efforts. Top FIFA officials seek to line their pockets by pursuing these deals via corrupt methods. Sepp Blatter, the FIFA president who oversaw the Qatar selection, was forced to step down in 2015 amid corruption charges. A plague of scandals by Blatter and his predecessor João Havelange have revealed the level of graft and cheating within international sports as well as the power that money plays in these events.² FIFA officials thus stand to make a lot of money by serving their own interests rather than the interests of fans.

The second fact is that Qatar, in return, is willing to open its wallet and spend whatever it takes for an opportunity to procure international influence. Massive oil and gas export revenues have made Qatar the fourth richest country in the world,³ and these revenues allow them to make massive investments in return for “a relatively cheap means of improving their image…and ability to exercise agency on the international stage.”² Because despite the country’s incredible wealth, Qatar is very limited in the hard power it wields. So in order to become a bigger player in the international community, they’ve pursued what’s known as “sports diplomacy” to boost their country’s influence and visibility. An adviser close to the Qatari leader once stated that being in the International Olympic Committee was more important than being in the UN in the modern world.⁷Thus, sports diplomacy may be more potent as a means of exerting international influence than at first glance.

In fact, sports diplomacy has been deliberately and strategically employed throughout history as a means of subverting traditional diplomatic channels and creating a favorable international image.² Sports are a universal language much like music and art, and with such large audiences, they can offer informal diplomatic pathways and provide an opportunity for a country to amplify its values, culture, and message. Historical examples of sports diplomacy include the Cold War Ping Pong diplomacy between the United States and China, India-Pakistan cricket diplomacy, and North and South Korea sending a joint women’s hockey team to the 2018 Olympics. In the Middle East, Dubai’s royal family buying Manchester City has been the biggest sports diplomacy success for oil-rich Gulf states. Further, Saudi Arabia’s creation of the LIV golf tour in the wake of the Khashoggi Scandal is the most recent high-profile example in the Middle East, though the success of that attempt is not yet determined.

In an effort to replicate these successes, Qatar’s Vision 2030–unveiled two years before the 2010 World Cup announcement–calls for ambitious efforts to grow the country’s sports sector. And they have done just that. BeIN Sports, headquartered in Qatar’s capital of Doha has come to “dominate broadcasting rights for major sports competitions and leagues” and has been increasing its expansion into Europe, North America, and Asia. Most recently, they hosted the 2019 IAAF World Athletics Championship, which also posed numerous challenges for Qatar. Stadiums were empty, and despite playing in air-conditioned stadiums reprieving them of the extreme heat, athletes complained of stifling humidity and late-night events that jeopardized their health. These admonishments have diminished Qatar’s credibility as a sporting state and could foreshadow the outcome of the World Cup.

Qatar hopes to dispel these criticisms by hosting a successful World Cup, cementing its status as a top-tier sporting country, and gaining influence internationally. The prestige of hosting such an event will convey a message of modernization and progress, countering stereotypes of the region. The games will allow Qatar to distinguish itself from its more prominent neighbors, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, and will also allow them to contrast itself as more open, free, and respectful of human rights than their regional neighbors. This message of modernity will make Qatar more attractive to future sporting events and improve its international perception.

However, the country’s problematic history of labor exploitation is the biggest threat to Qatar’s capabilities as a sporting country and undermines its international reputation. Qatar’s population sits at just under 3 million, however, only 380,000 of that total are Qatari nationals. Migrant workers, primarily from South Asian countries, comprise the majority of their population. The country’s migrant worker population jumped from 1.6 million people in December 2010 to 2.7 million in October 2018as the country geared up for the World Cup.¹ These migrant workers make up 94% of Qatar’s labor force, and they are often exploited. Qatar relies on the Kafala system of labor, sponsorship-based employment that legally binds foreign workers to their employers and restricts their ability to change jobs.⁴ Employers also routinely confiscate the passports of workers and are required to sign an exit permit for the worker, restricting their freedom to leave the country. These repressive practices make it difficult to leave exploitative work environments.

The construction of the new stadiums and infrastructure–including $20 billion in roads, the longest bridge in the world to neighboring Bahrain, a new airport, and more–for the tournament in Qatar was largely carried out by migrant workers. Many expressed concerns that the treatment of workers for the World Cup would lead to intense international scrutiny and be a major blemish on the event, setting back Qatar’s efforts to convey a progressive image. In fact, those concerns were well founded. In 2013, three years after being awarded the bid, 44 Nepali workers were reported dead within two months. Amnesty International reports from 2013 and 2016 documented large-scale labor abuses and forced labor of construction workers involved in upgrading Qatar’s flagship Khalifa Stadium.⁴ In 2014, the UN Special Rapporteur on Migrant Rights also described how workers in the country faced frequent exploitation, low or no pay, and lived in substandard conditions and called for the sponsorship system to be abolished.⁴ As recently as 2018, Amnesty International released an investigation alleging that Mercury MENA, an engineering company involved in building vital infrastructure serving the city and stadium hosting the opening and the final matches of the 2022 World Cup, had left dozens of workers penniless and stranded.

Bans on working during peak heat times were also routinely ignored with World Cup organizers acknowledging that contractors had violated this ordinance. As a result of the unsafe conditions, hundreds of workers have died. Workplace injuries are the third highest cause of accidental deaths in Qatar, however since Qatar keeps no official record, the figures are disputed.⁵ The Nepali embassy reported that 191 workers had been reported dead in 2010, and 520 workers were estimated dead in 2012 including workers involved in World Cup project sites.⁶ A report from The Guardian states that 6,500 migrant workers have died in the country since the World Cup was awarded in 2010.

The egregious, repeated mistreatment of migrant workers has led to a chorus of voices and organizations leveling criticism against Qatar and FIFA and calling for boycotts of the tournament. Beyond just the mistreatment of vulnerable workers, Qatar’s human rights record is shoddy, to say the least. Homosexuality is strictly prohibited and criminalized in Qatar along with relationships outside of marriage, and any public displays of affection or drunkenness. Additionally, morality measures such as modest dressing and the prohibition of behavior deemed offensive are also restrictions on the civil liberties that are generally accepted in liberal democracies of the West. These restrictions, particularly for LBTQ+ individuals, have raised serious concerns about the decision to host the tournament in Qatar; and have also led to many criticisms from NGOs and international officials. Diplomats at the United States embassy in Qatar have warned that activities such as protests, criticism of the Qatari government or Islam, or even just arguing with or insulting others in public could lead to arrest and may be criminally prosecuted there.⁷

As a result, several French cities including Paris have announced that they will be boycotting this World Cup. They will not be setting up the fan zones where spectators gather to watch the matches together, despite France being the reigning World Cup champions. These boycotts in protest of Qatar’s human rights record have also spilled over into cities in Germany and Belgium. Denmark’s Football Association has revealed their alternate uniforms for the tournament will be all black in mourning for the thousands of migrant workers that have died constructing World Cup venues.Many fan groups that normally follow the teams they support to the tournament have also boycotted the event this year, notably including the LGBTQ+ England fan group out of concerns for safety. Qatar has been rated as the second most dangerous country for LGBTQ+ travelers and the only openly gay player to participate in a World Cup, Josh Cavallo of Australia, has expressed his fears for safety as well as his desire for Qatar to establish a lasting legacy of reform following the World Cup. German, Danish, and Dutch teams have worn shirts in warmups to protest Qatar’s human rights record, and as the tournament draws nearer, top players and managers have made statements directly criticizing FIFA and Qatar.

Qatar has slammed these criticisms and pointed to the reforms they have put in place amidst immense international pressure. In a statement, the country’s emir complained that no host country has ever had to face this amount of criticism. He also lamented that despite their best efforts to listen and address concerns and criticisms, the campaign against Qatar has “reached an amount of ferocity that made many wonder…about the real reasons and motives behind this campaign.”⁸

The emirate’s defenders point to the landmark labor reforms that have been introduced in recent years. In 2017, the country signed an agreement with the UN’s International Labor Organization (ILO), establishing an ILO office in Doha and collaborating on wide-ranging labor reforms. The government subsequently passed several pieces of legislation to better protect migrant workers, including setting a temporary minimum wage, introducing protections for domestic workers, setting up new committees to investigate claims of abuse, and establishing a support fund for workers⁴. The country still did not abolish the Kafala system which many claim to be at the center of the abuse, however, they did reform it, removing the requirement to obtain an exit permit from an employer.

The secretary-general for Qatar 2022 also rebuked these criticisms, pointing out that the ILO lauded their labor reforms as historic, and that the International Trade Union Confederation considers Qatar’s updated laws as a benchmark for the region.⁸ Organizers have also sought to reassure international audiences regarding human rights concerns. FIFA and their Qatari partners have pledged that LGBTQ+ fans and fans of all backgrounds will be welcomed and that holding hands and pride flags would be tolerated.

As a result of the controversies and tragedies that have shrouded the 2022 World Cup, excitement is muted. Many observers wonder whether Qatar’s “sportwashing” stunt has backfired. Instead of coming off as progressive and modern, Qatar has been lambasted with negative publicity surrounding its cruelty to migrant workers and its restrictions on personal liberties. Bruce Riedel of the Brookings Institution notes that what happened during the building of football stadiums is getting more attention than the games themselves. Many have declared that Qatar’s World Cup ambitions have backfired on them. Rather than gain prestige, they have only garnered negative headlines. They have increased their visibility, but largely among a hostile audience of climate, LGBTQ+, labor rights, and human rights activists taking issue with the treatment of vulnerable groups in the country. Rather than improve their stature and gain soft power within the international community, they have received immense international backlash and instead face soft disempowerment. However, it may be too soon to write Qatar’s publicity stunt off as a failure.

International scrutiny will be heightened throughout the event, however, if Qatar lives up to its promises of being welcoming and accepting of all backgrounds throughout the entirety of the tournament, it may be able to present itself as more open and free than they have been portrayed recently. An uneventful tournament would be favorable for Qatar and would allow them to reframe their image more positively, as was intended from the beginning. Qatar may also be able to find redemption on the international stage as many economies suffer from exorbitant energy costs caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and subsequent sanctions on Russian oil. Qatar’s bountiful oil and gas reserves provide an opportunity to win influence and develop formidable friendships with global hegemons such as the United States who are seeking to lower energy costs and combat inflation. Despite the controversies surrounding the World Cup, Qatar still has the ability to increase their international prestige.

November 16, 2022 429 comments