Has there ever been a World Cup - or, indeed, any international sporting event - to generate so little excitement than the tournament now underway in Qatar? You’d have to go back to the tit-for-tat Cold War-proxy boycotts of the Moscow Olympics in 1980 and it’s equally mardy sequel in Los Angeles four years later to see the sort of apathy coming across from the Gulf.
Even in the opening match of the FIFA World Cup 2022, between the hosts and Equador, half the locals buggered off at half time, leaving vast swathes of empty seating in the Al Bayt Stadium. But if they were disinterested, what about the BBC’s presenting panel of Gary Lineker, Alan Shearer, Alex Scott and Ashley Williams? Let’s just say the energy in the room, as they introduced the fixture, was weird. As, by now, you’ll have read on Twitter or in the Daily Mail, it was the oddest opening to a football tournament ever. None of the eye-twinkling cornyness of the Des Lynam era, or slightly dodgy cultural cliches about the host nation. No. Not even a two-hour buildup and the promise of a “footballing fiesta”. Just a dead-eyed Lineker piece-to-camera, a canvass of pundits for opinions on the controversies-numerous of Qatar hosting the event, a forensic analysis of the issues from Ros Atkins, the presenter of the BBC’s Outside Source (does he ever wear anything other than that blue shirt underneath a blue blazer?) and for some ‘balance’ an interview with the BBC’s esteemed International Editor, Jeremy Bowen, on the tiny kingdom on the Arabian Peninsular. And then, more or less, straight into the opening game.
The day before Lineker had promised a “mini Panorama”, and in that respect, the dour introduction to what should be the quad-annual highlight of the footballing calendar was a spectacularly joyless affair. “Woke virtue signalling”, came the inevitable online reaction, with the usual effluence of right-wing bile attacking Lineker - as per - and, equally, predictably, Scott (whose status as a female, black and - recently revealed - gay presenter didn’t need emphasising to wind up those with, clearly, an agenda). And, of course, the fact that it was on the BBC was enough to send keyboard warriors of a particular political persuasion fuming into orbit.
I’ve blogged before about Scott’s treatment from people who seem to have a problem with her being female, or speaking with an accent or, more likely, being a woman of colour. Credit, then to football writer Oliver Holt who - in none other than the Daily Mail - called out the “scorn” and “cynicism” her presence on the BBC in Qatar has met. “Some people want to silence voices like hers, voices which make inconvenient observations about FIFA and its decision to hold the World Cup in a country that treats women as second-class citizens and gay women as criminals,” he wrote. “She deserves our admiration for having the courage to travel to Qatar to work for the BBC and continue doing a job she loves, and which she has earned on merit. At this men’s World Cup, in particular, it is more vital than it has ever been before that there are top-class female broadcasters reporting on the sport and reporting on the issues.”
It could easily be argued that everyone should just focus on the football, and embrace the hippy ideals of nations coming together in the name of sport. The music journalist Lesley Ann Jones made the point today in a blog post that there wasn’t such indignation over the Romans executing Christians in the Colosseum, or Egyptian slaves dying in the construction of the Pyramids. But while all of that is true, the Romans and the Ancient Egyptians didn’t exist in the modern age of enlightenment. Plus, you’d have hoped that in the millennia since, migrant labourers shouldn’t be forced to work in inhumane conditions on extremely low pay, or under extremely restricted terms of employment.
I get it, that Qatar’s religious laws and culture - as anywhere else, for that matter - should be respected but why, then, award the staging of a competition to a country where being gay can result in execution, when the institution awarding those rights wants everyone to know how diverse and inclusive it is? Of course, we now know why those rights were awarded. And how. And while I will watch the World Cup this year, I will do so uneasily at best, and queasily at worst.
Once upon a time you’d await a World Cup with giddy excitement. While I’ve never been one to prepare for an international tournament by pinning a fixtures calendar to the fridge and compulsively filling up a sticker album with every competing squad member, I have enjoyed the traditions. Chief of these has been the fact that World Cups are staged in the northern hemisphere summer, with most of the contributing domestic leagues done for another year, and the players able to focus on their countries long enough before heading off to the beach for a few weeks until the new season gets going again. But clearly not this year. No barbecues before games, not even the draping of national flags outside houses and flying from car aerials. This World Cup has come around to flat relative indifference.
In time, the actual football might change that, but I’m not holding my breath. I might eat my words if England progress, and I won’t pretend that I won’t be watching. But the controversy surrounding the tournament will not abate. And for that, anger must be awarded equally to both Qatar and FIFA.
Saturday’s ridiculous rant by FIFA president Gianni Infantino (“Today I feel Qatari, I feel Arab, I feel African, I feel gay, I feel disabled, I feel a migrant worker.”) in which he effectively equated being bullied for having red hair as a child to the treatment Qatar is receiving from Western sensibilities, wasn’t just a surreal moment, but underlined the preposterousness of the competition coming to the country in the first place. “You are not gay,” Alex Scott scolded him in the BBC’s opening segment. “You will not understand travelling to a country where you are fearing for your life about your preference of who you choose to love.” Bravo, Alex. In a sport where the bland go to extraordinary lengths to avoid having opinions (even Shearer, sitting to Scott’s right, took the beige route in his own comments on the controversy), it was refreshing to hear it called out.
Not enough, though, have called out the decision to award Qatar the event in the first place. Not enough have stood up to FIFA, despite the overwhelming evidence of its snout being buried deep in the trough. In April 2020 it was reported that, following years of investigation, the United States Department of Justice said that representatives working for Russia and Qatar had bribed FIFA officials to secure hosting rights for the World Cups in both countries. In 2015 FIFA president Sepp Blatter resigned amid investigations by both Swiss police and the FBI, while several FIFA administrators have been convicted of corruption. Even the slippery Blatter admitted recently that the decision to award the World Cup to Qatar had been a “poor choice”, not that his comments will have exonerated himself from culpability in the appalling decision.
 |
| Picture: Twitter/England |
The event is here now. I suppose we have to get on with it. The controversy of how it got here will not go away and, inevitably, as the tournament proceeds, fans will get caught up in all the usual arguments over penalties that weren’t, offsides that should have been given, VAR making a mockery of everyone else’s 20-20 vision, and all the pantomime villain-booing that comes with watching other countries play football (or, in other words, players from certain Latin nations diving like they’ve been shot).
England are up and running, with a comfortable win over the equally controversial Iran under their belts. England captain Harry Kane dodged an immediate yellow card before even kicking a ball by not wearing a ‘One Love’ rainbow armband (though Alex Scott did it for him). England avoided a fine from FIFA for the intended gesture. “England bottled it”, came the reaction on Twitter. “They’re just bowing to the oppression of the Qatari government.” one fan told the Press Association. “Let the players focus on the football,” came another viewpoint. They both have valid arguments.
Nor will this undercurrent of disquiet go away as the next few weeks continue. The tournament might be progressing, but it’s a coin toss as to whether football is.
No comments:
Post a Comment