The end of the World Cup in Qatar has sparked concerns among numerous organizations and activists who fear that the extensively documented human rights abuses in the Persian Gulf nation may fade from the public’s attention. Guillermo Whpei, serving as the President of the Foundation for International Democracy, firmly believes that the conclusion of the championship marks the beginning of a new campaign.
Whpei asserts, «The struggle commences as soon as the World Cup is over.» He has committed the Foundation to pursue three primary objectives: pressuring FIFA to adopt a more ethical stance and publicly admit to its actions, working towards improving the working conditions of migrant laborers, and securing financial compensation for the families of the victims.
At the commencement of the World Cup, the Foundation released a study initiated in 2017, which assessed the conditions of these workers. However, the specific methods to achieve their proposed objectives are not explicitly outlined.
While the International Labor Organization (ILO) collaborated with Qatar in 2014 to implement labor reforms aimed at enhancing the working and living conditions of migrant workers, Whpei disputes any significant progress. He contends, «I do not see any improvements in Qatar; they have essentially altered the terminology. The kafala system is fundamentally flawed. It was modified for appearances, but the fundamental issues persist. Now, instead of needing their employer’s permission to leave the country, workers must obtain approval from Qatar’s authorities.»
Instances where human rights violations intersect with football are not uncommon. In 1978, FIFA chose Argentina to host the World Cup during the country’s dictatorship. It was during that World Cup that «the bloodiest World Cup took place, where there were more than 30,000 forced disappearances and torture,» as noted by Guillermo Whpei. However, to date, the Foundation has not released any reports on this matter.
Activist Chaimaa Boukharsa, a philologist specializing in Arab and Islamic studies, believes that if the World Cup in Qatar is boycotted, many other events should be subject to boycott as well. She points out that the West often employs a double standard in criticizing Qatar, failing to recognize similar issues within their own countries. She notes that Qatar has a terrible record of human rights, but it’s essential not to overlook cases of exploitation and slavery that have occurred in the West, even in southern Spain.
Guillermo Whpei, on the other hand, defends criticizing the World Cup, emphasizing that just because history has question marks doesn’t mean the present is justified. However, the issues mentioned by Boukharsa are contemporary, not rooted in the distant past.
Boukharsa raises questions about the conditions under which products like strawberries are produced and the inhumane treatment of seasonal workers who produce them. These workers often face homelessness, meager wages, and live in makeshift settlements in rural areas. She also highlights the rampant rape and exploitation of women in these circumstances.
Boukharsa, along with other activists on social networks, deems it hypocritical that people in the soccer industry suddenly express concern for the rights of the LGBTQ+ community, given the toxic and heteronormative environment in football.
She also points out the lack of action against Israel and the fact that Israel has been a member of UEFA in Europe since 1994, despite being widely criticized for its apartheid policies. She questions why Israel hosts events like Eurovision, which is a European cultural event, despite its controversial actions.
The Foundation for Democracy, with its post-World Cup goals, doesn’t hold football responsible for these issues. Instead, it places the blame on the politics surrounding football, which it considers dirty, speculative, and self-serving. FIFA’s prioritization of profit over the spirit of sport and international competition is seen as the root of the problem.
