The conclusion of the World Cup in Qatar has raised concerns among organizations and activists who fear that the widely criticized human rights violations in the Persian Gulf country may fade from public attention. Guillermo Whpei, President of the Foundation for International Democracy, firmly believes that the championship’s end marks the beginning of a struggle.
According to Whpei, «The battle begins when the World Cup ends.» He has committed the Foundation to work on three main objectives: urging FIFA to become an «ethical body» and publicly acknowledge its actions, improving the conditions of migrant workers, and securing financial compensation for the victims’ families.
At the start of the World Cup, the Foundation released a study initiated in 2017 that assessed the situation of these workers, but the specific strategies for achieving their proposed goals are not outlined.
The International Labor Organization (ILO), which partnered with Qatar in 2014 to implement labor reforms aimed at improving the working and living conditions of migrant workers, claims that progress has been made. However, Whpei disputes this, stating, «I don’t see any improvement from Qatar; they merely altered the terminology. The kafala system is inherently flawed. It was altered for appearances, but the fundamental issues remain. Now, instead of seeking the employer’s permission to leave the country, workers must seek approval from Qatar’s authorities.»
Instances of human rights violations intersecting with football are not uncommon. In 1978, FIFA chose Argentina to host the World Cup when the country was under a 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.
