Football in the Middle East: Profits vs People
Monday 30th October, 2023. The latest occasion that has seen FIFA try and highlight their commitment to inclusivity by imposing a three year ban on former Spanish football federation president Luis Rubiales, for kissing Spanish forward Jenni Hermoso on the lips, following Spain’s World Cup triumph over England in August.
That quote however, according to many people, is argued to be immensely contradicting.
Questions have arose, particularly in recent World Cup years, over FIFA’s genuine devotion towards inclusivity in football, and whether they value people over the profits, with the 2022 World Cup in Qatar being the latest event to cause significant controversy amongst the footballing world, and beyond.
Almost a year has passed since Qatar and Ecuador kicked off the 2022 FIFA World Cup, allowing the world to witness the end product of what is possibly the most controversial sporting event in history.
Yet even still, there is ongoing discussion about the tournament's nature as well as the views of host country Qatar. While the 2018 World Cup in Russia had raised serious concerns over human rights consideration too.
But how did they win the right to host the infamous tournament? Was money prioritised over people? Was FIFA’s ‘commitment’ to inclusivity demonstrated when assigning the tournament?
In a recent interview with Sports Journalist Will Castle, the thought of sports washing killing football is one he believes to be untrue, in fact it’s more ruining it, highlighting the invincibility the sport has.
“No, I don’t think football can be killed. I think the super league proved that greed at its most can’t be killed. What it is doing is ruining it, it can’t kill it but it can ruin it.
“It shows corruption. It shows money can really buy anything. In terms of a football level, football isn’t the main concern, it’s the complete disregard to human rights and the decision to sweep it all under the carpet,” Castle said.
Castle’s worries on the impact of sportswashing grew greater after Saudi Arabia’s ambitions to host the 2034 World Cup surfaced in recent weeks.
“The World Cup in Qatar was actually a major success and the fact that it was so successful, with Messi winning it and all of that, people are forgetting that thousands died building the Stadia and that happened right under the nose of the government.
“It’s a complete shambles and they’re aren’t going to stop anytime soon as the 2034 World Cup will be going to Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is amongst the worst with a horrific human rights record, so it doesn’t fill me with hope.”
FIFA’s answer to why Russia and Qatar have hosted the last two is growth. FIFA craves constant growth, and according to Bleacher Report, the vast expanse and population of Russia offered the potential growth they were searching for. As for Qatar, this was a World Cup for the entire region, and the bid was packaged as such.
Yet if you were to ask the same question to the millions of fans around the world, I can assure you that growth wouldn’t be the first thing that they would say.
Their answer would be money.
Money will almost certainly play a major role in whatever decision that is made when Qatar and FIFA are involved in a conversation. And after the Middle Eastern nation saw their dream come to fruition, it’s safe to say “money talks” when deciding who was going to host the 2022 World Cup.
When it comes to bidding wars, anyone competing with Qatar will have an incredibly difficult challenge in front of them. It is unclear as to how much Qatar ultimately spent on their 2022 World Cup bid but The Guardian estimates that it was slightly less than $200m, with any private money being far from traceable. Pocket change for them really.
However, according to the Daily Mail, leaked documents have revealed the state of Qatar made a $400m offer to FIFA three weeks before world football's governing body controversially decided that they would host the 2022 World Cup.
An exclusive investigation from The Sunday Times discovered files that showed high-ranking officials from the Qatari state-run broadcaster Al Jazeera signed a television deal making the lucrative money offer.
The TV company had agreed to pay a fee worth $100m into a FIFA account providing Qatar were successful in the World Cup ballot in 2010.
The difference in money is evident when you’re to compare the Qatari bid with other countries’. Australia spent just $42.7 million on its bid; the United States spent less than $5 million. England, in its 2018 bid, allocated $24 million to the process—an amount that was widely decried for being excessive.
There was simply no competition.
The same can be said about Saudi Arabia, who in recent weeks seem to be set to host the 2034 FIFA World Cup, after being confirmed as the sole bidder for the tournament.
It comes as no surprise that Saudi Arabia have had a free run at achieving the rights to host the tournament, given the bidding process that unfolded with Qatar. It also feels inevitable. Grimly inevitable to many.
Money alone isn’t the issue millions of people hold regarding FIFA’s World Cup allocations, because as a non profit organisation in any walk of life, monstrous and unrivalled bids from whoever would be hard to turn down, and that is understandable.
But Castle believes there is a total disregard to the danger that can come with assigning certain countries the World Cup in this way, and that their bids aren’t because they want to improve their football sides.
“A country with such a poor human rights record shouldn’t be given that stage to launder their reputation regardless of money. Qatar didn’t put their World Cup bid in to improve their football team, they put it in to launder their reputation.
“This is another example of how football is being used as a tool to launder a reputation that is tarnished by human rights and I believe you can’t give a country that opportunity because it only leads to bad things,” Castle stated.
Yet these so called ‘bad things’ aren’t necessarily just football based. They can expand into the wider world.
“It often leads to the escalation of military action,” Castle added.
“You saw it in 2014, the Winter Olympics were held in Sochi, Russia, and it lead to a massive upturn in support within the country and approval rates for [Vladimir] Putin went through the roof, and a couple of months later off the back of that consolidated position and consolidated strength, Russia invaded Crimea.
“So it’s really dangerous to give these sort of nations major sporting events regardless of whether it might improve their football.”
Additionally, there are ever-growing concerns regarding the idea that FIFA are prioritising profit over people. Disregarding human rights.
Minky Worden, the director of global initiatives at Human Rights Watch believes the disregarding of human rights has become even more evident since Saudi Arabia expressed their ambitions to host the 2023 FIFA World Cup.
“Barely a year after the human rights catastrophes of the 2022 Qatar World Cup, FIFA has failed to learn the lesson that awarding multi-billion dollar events without due diligence and transparency can risk corruption and major human rights abuses,” said Worden.
“The possibility that FIFA could award Saudi Arabia the 2034 World Cup despite its appalling human rights record and closed door to any monitoring exposes FIFA’s commitments to human rights as a sham.”
Will Castle has echoed Worden’s thoughts in believing FIFA has prioritised profits over people and that they are doing a weak job at hiding the “blatant sportswashing” that is seemingly unfolding quite regularly.
“I do absolutely believe that FIFA has prioritised the profit over people. You look back at the bids for Russia and Qatar, there’s so many better options, countries that are completely inclusive but it’s clear that money talks.
“They say the excuse that they’re trying to spread football and it shouldn’t always be in Europe or the Americas, but it’s just a blatant sportswashing campaign as it brings so many eyes to the country.
“The World Cup in Qatar was actually a major success and the fact that it was so successful, with Messi winning it and all of that, people are forgetting that thousands died building the Stadia and that happened right under the nose of the government.
“It’s a complete shambles and they’re aren’t going to stop anytime soon as the 2034 World Cup will be going to Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is amongst the worst with a horrific human rights record, so it doesn’t fill me with hope,” Castle said.
It isn’t just FIFA that has been under scrutiny for their contradiction and disregard towards human rights. Gary Neville and Jordan Henderson are two individuals that come to mind.
Over the last couple of years, Saudi Arabia’s wealth has ultimately put them on the footballing map at a rapid pace. Jaw dropping contracts have meant an array of talent including some of football’s biggest names didn’t need to think twice about moving to the middle-east. Jordan Henderson is one of them players.
The Sunderland-born midfielder drew the curtain on his legendary career at Liverpool Football Club this summer for pastures new with Saudi Arabian side Al Ettifaq, managed by another Liverpool legend, Steven Gerrard.
The England international endured a 12 year stay on Merseyside, leading Jurgen Klopp’s men to a Champions League and ended their 30 year wait to become Champions of England once more - alongside an FA Cup and a Carabao Cup.
Henderson’s transfer was met by fierce criticism from LGBTQ+ organisations. The 33-year old was one of the leading supporters of LGBTQ+ rights when he was the Liverpool captain, but has since faced accusations of betrayal after agreeing a lucrative move to Saudi, where same-sex relationships are illegal and can result in capital punishment.
In September, Henderson spoke to The Athletic and defended his move to the middle-east and why he believes him playing there is a positive thing.
“I think there was always going to be criticism regardless of what I did, whether I stayed, whether I went. So basically I had to make the decision on what was best for me and my family.
“So the football is the football side. So do I go somewhere to try something new, to grow the game that I love in another country, and grow the league into one of the best in the world? That excites me because I want to grow the sport all over the world. And that got me going, really,” Henderson said.
The former Liverpool captain apologised for any anger the LGBTQ+ community has had towards him since the move, remaining adamant that his move was never meant to cause any malice.
“And obviously the LGBTQ+ community. I can understand the frustration. I can understand the anger. I get it. All I can say around that is that I’m sorry that they feel like that. My intention was never, ever to hurt anyone.
“My intention has always been to help causes and communities where I felt like they had asked for my help. Now, when I was making the decision, the way that I tried to look at it was I felt as though, by myself not going, we can all bury our heads in the sand and criticise different cultures and different countries from afar. But then nothing’s going to happen. Nothing’s going to change,” he stated.
Will Castle believes Henderson’s move highlights clear hypocrisy but doesn’t believe every player that has transferred to the Saudi Pro League falls into the same bracket as England international.
LISTEN: Will Castle’s views on Jordan Henderson’s decision to move to Saudi Arabia
“The players that have gone out to Saudi, not all of them have been outspoken and have seen the wealth they could earn and realise they could cover generations of their family’s income and fair enough,” Castle said.
“But Jordan Henderson, he is the hypocrite among hypocrites. As much as I loved him as a Liverpool player, he has let both himself and the community he claimed to support down. Any excuse he says, he said in an interview he was won over by the project, I mean its just complete waffle.
“It’s hypocritical, it’s a contradiction and not a lot will be done if people who are meant to be supporting human and gay rights don’t stand up and fight.”
Gary Neville, most commonly known for his punditry work on Sky Sports, was one of many pundits criticised for travelling to Qatar for last year’s FIFA World Cup.
His defence and argument was that he wanted to use the platform to raise the issues surrounding Qatar and the tournament.
Speaking to ITV Sport, Neville defended himself and fellow pundits for travelling out to Qatar: "I don't feel conflicted. I've been coming over to the Middle East for 20 years and to South East Asia.
“I've had business and commercial relationships with these parts for a long, long time. The fact FIFA has awarded a World Cup has come under intense scrutiny, I accept that position. I'm there to be shot at and people have criticised me heavily.
"People have criticised our colleagues on the BBC for coming over here but the reality of it is, my view on it quite simply is I detest human rights abuses, I hate the idea of not paying people enough money, people working in poor conditions, the idea of people not having good living conditions.”
WATCH: Gary Neville, Laura Woods, Ian Wright and Nigel De Jong discuss the 2022 World Cup.
Will Castle believes the Manchester United legend’s reasonings aren’t true and that he wanted to go out there to work rather than highlight issues from home, amid thinking there is no malicious intent in Neville’s decision.
“Gary Neville I don’t care as much about because I feel like he was put in a sticky situation. His excuse when he said he wanted to go out and highlight the issue and he wouldn’t be able to do it from home, that’s just not true, he wanted to go to a World Cup. I cant really blame him, it wasn’t great, it shows ignorance but I don’t think it was malicious.”