When You're Hot, You're Hot: Why Qatar Should Not Be Hosting the 2022 World Cup

The old adage rang true in more ways than one last week, when FIFA announced the hosts for the 2018 and 2022 World Cup finals.  On December 2, FIFA’s executive committee convened in Zurich to vote on who will host the two tournaments.  In a move that seemed to surprise no one, Russia was awarded the 2018 World Cup, making them the second country, along with Brazil, that will host back to back World Cup Finals and Olympic Games in the coming decade. (Brazil is hosting the 2014 world cup and Rio will host the 2016 Summer Olympics, while the 2014 Winter Olympics will take place in Sochi, Russia).

When it comes to bidding on major international sports competitions, these two countries are hot.  Another country that one could argue is equally hot, is Qatar.  At the same December meeting in Zurich, the FIFA committee announced that Qatar will host the 2022 World Cup Finals.  Considering the diminutive population of the country (less than 1 million by most estimates), along with their non-existent football pedigree, one could argue that their triumph in Zurich is an even greater feat than Russia’s and Brazil’s accomplishment in hosting back-to-back games.

But there’s another thing that makes Qatar hot, and it’s not something they’re keen on advertising.  It’s their climate.  In the months of June and July it's not uncommon for temperatures to rise above 50C, much too hot to play a game of soccer comfortably, or for that matter, safely.  And this is just one many of things that have FIFA’s critics up in arms over the decision.

Almost from the moment the decision came out, the blogosphere was alight with pundits denouncing what they saw as a calamity waiting to happen.  In addition to the soaring temperatures, among the concerns echoed by these detractors was the country’s size.  At present, there is only one stadium in the entire nation.  There were also concerns about the countries strict Islamic laws, which among other things, forbid consumption of alcohol.  If the average British soccer hooligan had any concept of Islamic law, or even knew where Qatar was on a map, there’d have been hell to pay.

But alas, Qatar, the-little-gulf-state-that-could, anticipated these quandaries and preemptively provided a solution for each of them.  For the would-be Guiness-guzzlers, there would be special designated zones in and around each stadium, where alcohol would be permitted.  For the simmering heat, all new stadiums would be outfitted with a state-of-the-art air conditioning system.

That was all well and good.  But how would they get around the shear tininess of the place.  Were the Qataris willing to clutter the landscape of Doha, their capital and sole metropolis, with overbearing stadiums that would be destined for obsolescence the minute the closing ceremonies wrapped up?  Would such an undertaking even be ethical given the go-Green-or-go-home social climate?

The Qataris’ answer to this question would be the crown jewel in what most observers have described as a near-flawless bid.  They would build futuristic stadiums that could be disassembled after the tournament and donated to developing countries.  It was a splendid idea, both for its creativity, and its humanitarian slant.  Sure, the portable stadiums and outdoor air-conditioning systems would sound far-fetched coming from most countries, but Qatar is literally dripping with oil wealth, so much so that it boasts the world’s highest per capita income.  This detail surely factored into the decision of the FIFA executive committee.  Even critics of a Qatar-hosted world cup seem to agree that if the decision was to be based purely on the quality of the bid presentation, then the right country won.

A lot of the uproar came from scorned soccer fans from the more established soccer nations who saw their bids fall short.  Among the nations who didn’t make the grade, were The United States, the UK, Korea, and Japan.  Since the US, Korea and Japan have all hosted the tournament within the past 20 years (Korea and Japan had it as recently as 2002), it’s hard to sympathize with them.  England has only hosted once and that was back in 1966.  Many thought that this fact, along with their strong final presentation, should have earned them serious consideration, but they failed to make it past the first round of voting.  For this and other reasons, some writers have suggested that Qatar may have bribed their way to victory, however, to date, no one has provided any evidence to substantiate this claim.

The more likely explanation is that the FIFA committee became enamoured by the idea of a small underdog, winning this battle of goliaths.  It’s also clear that they harbor romantic notions about the fact that Qatar will be the first Middle Eastern country to host a World Cup Finals.  It just makes for a good story.

However, with all that being said, there are much more legitimate arguments for why Qatar should not have been awarded hosting duties.  The arguments centre around the country’s human rights record, which, disappointingly, has been omitted from the entire discussion surrounding Qatar’s bid.  Like all the gulf states, Qatar employs thousands of migrant workers (hundred of thousands in Qatar’s case), most of whom work in jobs where they perform menial labour.  These workers are ineligible for citizenship, and are often targets of violent abuse at the hands of their employers.  According to Amnesty International, the country heavily limits freedom of assembly and freedom of speech (any criticism of the Emir/dictator is punishable by imprisonment). Residents are routinely incarcerated without trial and the suppression of women in enshrined in law.  This is to say nothing of the fact that Qatar, like all the other gulf states, is a full-fledged dictatorship that is ruled by a single family, in whom sovereignty is endowed by birthright.

This is not to suggest that Qatar is unique in this respect.  Many of the same criticisms apply to China and Russia, both of whom have been awarded either the Olympics or the World Cup (or both) within the recent past.  Domestically speaking, the United States is among the more democratic regimes in the world, but in terms of their foreign policy, they’re anything but.  Given their penchant for toppling democratically elected governments (as recently as 2004 in Haiti), and then propping up brutal dictatorships, America’s status as a true democracy is tenuous at best.  On top of that, the country is home to a former head of state who openly admits to having committed war crimes, while the current president refuses to prosecute.

So while I vigourously oppose the choice of Qatar as host of the 2022 World Cup, my reservations also apply to Russia, China, every country in the Middle East (including Israel and Egypt, but excluding Iraq and possibly Lebanon), and The United States, among others.  If it were up to me, these countries would be banned from even participating in the World Cup, much less hosting.  I find it telling that, in spite of all the ethical grounds upon which to base ones opposition to Qatar 2022, the discussion so far has revolved primarily around booze and logistics.  So while the FIFA executive committee may or may not be financially corrupt, when it comes to moral corruption, there’s more than enough to go around.