It’s time to boycott the World Cup (and its sponsors)

“Put up or shut up,” “put your money where your mouth is,” and other similar phrases and sayings all have the same meaning: stand by your principles. And that’s what I shall be doing when it comes to the football World Cup, which kicks off in the nation of Qatar in less than 24 hours’ time. I won’t be tuning in to watch a single minute of football at a World Cup for the first time in my life, having cheered on England at every tournament (that they qualified for, at any rate) for literally as long as I can remember. But I can’t support the decision to send the World Cup to Qatar.

In my view, England, Wales, and any other footballing nation with a conscience should have officially boycotted the tournament, and made their intentions plain in that regard months if not years ago. All of this talk of a “political boycott” – in which senior government officials refuse to attend but the football team still goes and plays – is utterly meaningless and hypocritical. Either go to the World Cup and say that “sport and politics should be wholly separate,” or stand by your principles. The FA and UK government want to have their cake and eat it; to criticise Qatar while simultaneously attending the World Cup. But it doesn’t work that way.

England’s World Cup squad with Prince William, who is the President of the English Football Association.
Image Credit: Football Association

Qatar should never have been in serious contention to host a tournament like the World Cup in the first place, and despite an internal “investigation” in which FIFA cleared itself of any wrongdoing, let’s not pretend that the decision to award the World Cup to Qatar back in 2010 was anything other than corrupt. Qatar schemed, cheated, and bribed their way to hosting this tournament, and while they’re certainly not the only nation to have bought and paid for a major event (looking at you, Salt Lake City) the sheer brazenness of the bribery and corruption in this case was enough to turn off fans right from the start.

Qatar is simply not a place well-suited to play football. Setting aside the searing desert temperatures that, even at this time of year, can cause health problems, it’s a tiny place which in 2010 had a single football stadium that everyone agreed was unsuitable for hosting games at this level. Qatar pledged to build eight new stadia in time for the World Cup… and that’s where the problems began.

La’eeb, the official mascot for Qatar 2022.

At least 6,500 people have died building these eight stadia over the past twelve years. Let’s repeat that: six thousand, five hundred people died. Sixty-five hundred people. Have you known of any other comparable building project in the last few decades to have a death toll of more than a few individuals? For comparison, the London Olympic Games in 2012 required the construction of new stadia for the track and field events, swimming, cycling, and more – and recorded a single fatality (a crane operator in 2011 slipped and fell during a storm).

Many of the 6,500 people who died to build Qatar’s vanity project were “migrant workers” – many of whom came from the Indian subcontinent and Africa and were paid a pittance for their labour. Many deaths were attributed to heatstroke, but the poor working conditions contributed to many more. And according to recent reports from fans and journalists who have begun arriving in Qatar ahead of the event, major construction projects like the so-called “fan village” aren’t even complete.

Part of the unfinished “fan village” in Qatar.
Image Credit: Daily Mail

The treatment of these migrant workers should come under heavy scrutiny, and should have resulted in Qatar being relieved of its opportunity to host the tournament years ago. Had a decision been taken in, say, 2017 or 2018, lives could have been saved. Even as late as this summer, it would have been possible to strip Qatar of the World Cup and make alternative arrangements in countries that already have the footballing and transportation infrastructure to handle an even of this magnitude. Those decisions should have been taken by FIFA, and there were years in which the Qatari treatment of its forced labourers was obvious even to casual outside observers. But again, corruption at FIFA runs deep, and money talks. Qatar was allowed to continue as host of the World Cup, and FIFA seems to have taken no action whatsoever to prevent further deaths, even as the death toll continued to climb.

As if that wasn’t enough, Qatar also has an appalling record on human rights, with homosexuality being illegal. This issue also came up in regards to Russia four years ago, so it seems that FIFA has a knack for awarding the World Cup to the most homophobic countries imaginable. This has led to some utterly ridiculous statements, including from some government officials here in the UK: “don’t be gay” if you go to Qatar is basically the official advice from the British government.

“Don’t be gay” in Qatar is the best advice the UK government can offer.

And it’s this issue of gay rights where the England football team and others feel incredibly hypocritical. If they want to take a stand in favour of gay rights in Qatar, the only way to do so in any meaningful way is not to play. All this talk of rainbow shoelaces, rainbow armbands, or rainbow shirt logos is just nonsense – as long as the teams are there, they’re providing the Qatari government and its homophobic policies with their tacit support. Qatar is using the World Cup as a textbook exercise in sportswashing – and to make a packet of cash, of course – and we’re not only letting them get away with it, but actively participating in it.

I cannot in good conscience support the World Cup in Qatar. I wish that the British government, the English and Welsh football associations, and others from around the world had been bold enough to take a stand, but they haven’t. So it falls to all of us as fans to decide – is sport more important than human rights? Can we support and endorse a tournament in a place like Qatar? Or should we do what our governments and football associations have been too cowardly to do, and boycott the tournament ourselves? I’m choosing the latter.

One of the stadia that cost so many lives to build.

By refusing to watch any of the matches, engage with any of the posts on social media, or buy products from brands and sponsors who are heavily investing in advertising at the World Cup, we can send a message that we don’t support Qatar, that we don’t support sportswashing, that we don’t support a regime that condemns workers to death and routinely violates the basic human rights of its citizens and residents, and that we don’t support hypocrisy.

It isn’t good enough to say that we oppose Qatar’s position on gay rights, or that we believe that migrant workers have been mistreated, if we then go on to cheer for our favourite teams, make the sponsors feel that their decision to invest in Qatar was worthwhile, and provide cover for the Qatari regime as they attempt to sportswash their image and their reputation. It’s time to take a stand on principle, and do so as loudly as possible.

Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, the current Emir of Qatar.

Qatar should never have been awarded the World Cup, and when the bribery and underhanded schemes that they used came to light, they should have been stripped of the tournament. When the bodies of migrant workers piled up as Qatar built its stadia, again the right to host the tournament should have been taken away. And when it became obvious that Qatar’s appalling attitude to basic human rights wasn’t going to change, that should have been the final nail in the coffin. At every stage, FIFA failed to act. But it isn’t only FIFA’s fault. The British government, the football associations of England and Wales, and governments and sporting bodies from Europe, the United States, and around the world could and should have worked together to take stand. They failed to do so.

That only leaves us. The World Cup is a nakedly commercial event, one which sponsors and advertisers hope will bring their corporations a bucketload of cash. The more of us who loudly and proudly state that we aren’t participating, and the more we call out corporations like Budweiser, Coca-Cola, Adidas, Hyundai, and Visa (to name but a few) the more they will realise that they have made a mistake – and the greater the chance we have of avoiding a repeat of this disaster in the future.

Hit the corporations and the Qataris where it hurts: in the wallet. I hope you’ll join me in boycotting this year’s World Cup.

This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

English football needs to add two MAJOR new rules

A love of football has been in my family since my great-grandfather first emigrated to England in the late 1800s! My grandfather attended his first football match shortly after the First World War, and was a lifelong fan of Fulham – a team whose fortunes have bounced around a lot in recent years. The sport has changed immeasurably since then, with the upper echelons of football becoming awash with money and arguably losing touch with the working-class roots someone of my grandfather’s generation would recognise.

The amount of money in football is partly driven by television broadcasting, but also by a change in the way clubs themselves operate. No longer are clubs content to make a small profit; enough to pay the wages, maintain their ground, and keep the lights on. Instead, some of the biggest clubs in the country have become corporations, earning huge profits for shareholders and/or private owners – many of whom are based overseas.

Football has changed a lot since my grandfather’s day!

Football has seen a number of rules added and changed over the years. Extra time and penalty shoot-outs have replaced replays. The offside rule, and adjustments to it, changed the way matches are played. There were “golden goals” for a while! And of course, the recent addition of VAR (video assistant referees) has been controversial in some quarters. These rules affect the game in different ways, and we can argue whether each one has been for better or worse.

Recent events over the last year or so have shone light on the fact that English football is missing two rules that I think are absolutely vital to the future success and integrity of the sport. It’s surprising to me that a professional league like the Premier League never adopted such rules in the first place, or that the EFL, which has been running since 1888, has never considered either rule necessary. Let’s look at each in turn.

The logo of the English Football League.

Firstly we’re considering something that the pandemic brought into sharp focus last year: what to do if a season can’t be completed. For some reason, the Premier League, EFL, and other leagues around the world appear to have no provision for this scenario – yet it’s something that any professional body should be planning for. There was an intense debate last year about what to do in the event that the season couldn’t resume following pandemic-related disruption, and the absolutely stunning thing to me was that there seemed to be nothing in the rulebook to cover this.

Professional football has been disrupted in the past, by both world wars. Even though no such disruption had occurred since the 1940s, it should still have been a possibility for the Football League to consider when drafting and updating its rules, and it’s really a dereliction of duty – or else rank incompetence – that no one knew what was going on last year. Football’s governing bodies appear to have taken the approach of “it probably won’t happen,” and just not bothered to put any kind of rule or guidance in place. That’s not acceptable and has to change.

What should happen if the football season is disrupted again?

The rule needs to be ironclad and simple, so there’s no room for argument or cries of “unfair” based on the performance of individual clubs. I would have it look something like this:

In the event that a season cannot be completed, one of the following will apply: If fewer than one-third of scheduled matches have been completed, the season is declared null and void. All points earned, goals scored, yellow and red cards awarded, and so on are considered entirely expunged. When a new season is able to commence, all teams remain in place, with no promotion or relegation taking place. If more than one-third of matches have been completed, the season will be considered complete. League table positions will be considered final, with promotion and relegation based on current standings. All goals, yellow and red cards, etc. will remain on the books.

An empty football ground.

When the rule has been decided on and incorporated into the laws of the game, no club will be able to cry “unfair!” if a future season is disrupted and needs to end early. It might be difficult to agree on the appropriate cut-off, before which the season is voided and after which the season is declared complete. I’ve suggested one-third of the total number of matches, because usually by that point in the season things are becoming clear as to which clubs are doing well and which aren’t.

If one-third of matches doesn’t seem right, that number could be changed to half, 75%, or whatever clubs agreed on. But the principle remains: there needs to be a cut-off point at which the season is declared complete, and a point at which the season is simply declared void. Every club needs to sign up to this, so that there will never again be the kinds of arguments we saw last year.

New rules need to be written ASAP!

The second new rule pertains to the European Super League, the failure of which is one thing fans of practically every club can agree was fantastic! When the European Super League was proposed, I wrote a piece for the website criticising the project for its patent unfairness. But that’s kind of beside the point. The new rule needs to prohibit any team(s) from joining a breakaway competition without the explicit permission of the Premier League and Football League, and needs to specify strict penalties for any clubs that do so without permission.

As above, this rule needs to be watertight and easily understood, with no loopholes or get-out clauses. It will also need to be specific on the penalties for clubs that violate the rule. I propose something like this:

No team may agree to join or participate in any competition, league, tournament, or match, even in principle, without seeking the prior agreement of the Football League and a majority of member clubs. No “breakaway” competition, league, or tournament may be set up without the permission of the Football League and a majority of member clubs. Penalties for violating this rule will include: an immediate twenty-point deduction for any club involved, the complete prohibition of any player involved in such a league, competition, etc. from playing in any match in the Football League, Premier League, FA Cup, and other football competitions in England, and for clubs that continue to violate this rule over the course of more than one season, expulsion from the Premier League, Football League, and all other English competitions.

The “treacherous six” – the six English clubs that tried to undermine football.

Despite the rapid collapse of the European Super League, some of the wealthiest clubs and individuals involved in English and European football have not given up on the idea altogether. However, they have now tipped their hand, which gives the Football League, Premier League, and other European leagues time to act and bring in these kinds of harsh penalties to discourage it from ever happening again.

English clubs are already threatened with a ten-point deduction for falling into administration (i.e. becoming insolvent) so the principle of points deductions for bad behaviour exists and is acceptable. If a twenty-point deduction were put into place for the six Premier League teams who tried to join the European Super League last month, at least two – possibly three – would have been relegated. Arsenal, Liverpool, and Tottenham would all be in or just above the relegation zone, so this kind of threat will work.

Arsenal would be in serious trouble if there were consequences for their failed attempt to join the European Super League.

In Scotland there are two huge teams: Celtic and Rangers. They’re the two biggest clubs in Scottish football, and between them have dominated the Scottish league and cups for decades. But in 2012, following a series of financial issues, Rangers was relegated from the Scottish Premiership and had to begin all over again from the Scottish Third Division. Rangers is a case in point: no club, no matter how big and powerful they think they are, is above the rules.

Scottish football was dominated by Celtic in Rangers’ absence, and it was only this season – for the first time in a decade – that anyone other than Celtic won the league. English football is not a two-horse race, so the relegation of even clubs like Liverpool or Manchester United would not lead to one team dominating in the way it did in Scotland. It might even be a net positive for English football overall.

I love football. The unpredictability of the sport, especially in cup competitions, is fantastic. But as the game has become a worldwide money-making machine, corruption and greed have followed. The two rule changes I’m suggesting wouldn’t fix everything wrong with football in England. But they’d be a step in the right direction.

All brands and clubs listed above, along with shirts, logos, etc. are the copyright of their respective owners. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

The European Super League will be bad for one simple reason: fairness

I don’t talk about football very often here on the website. In fact, I daresay I’ve discussed the FIFA football video games on more occasions than the sport itself! But with all of the discussion flying around online since last night’s bolt from the blue announcement of a possible European Super League, I felt compelled to comment.

The twelve clubs – six of which, I’m sad to see, are from my native England – have drawn a lot of criticism for this plan, and we’ll discuss in a moment the potential ramifications for them. But with so many people piling on with criticism mixed with ideas for “punishments” it feels like a really basic message is in danger of getting lost in the confusion. What it all boils down to is simple: fairness. That one word encapsulates everything wrong with a European Super League.

It’s deeply disappointing to see these six clubs – plus six of their European allies – planning to grab more money and power for themselves at the expense of basic fairness and sportsmanship.

Every sport, whether it’s curling, showjumping, ice hockey, or football, has to be fair and has to be seen to be fair. There will always be bad individual decisions; referees who make a bad call, a goal disallowed or allowed to stand incorrectly, and so on. Those idiosyncrasies will always be part of football, and indeed of any team sport. But the rules underpinning competition have to be seen to be fair – they can’t disproportionately favour one team, country, or club over everyone else. Yet that’s exactly what the European Super League would do. It would play favourites.

A closed league in which most clubs can never be relegated no matter how poorly they perform, and in which those clubs are given vast sums of money from the league’s sponsors is simply not fair. If those clubs are then allowed to participate in other competitions, such as their domestic leagues or cups, they have an additional unfair advantage in those as well. So the European Super League is not just unfair in that it would keep its fifteen “members” there in perpetuity no matter what else was happening in the wider game, it would give each of those clubs a massive boost in whatever other competitions they participated in.

Manchester United are one of the clubs involved in this scheme.

Money has already made the upper echelons of football incredibly difficult to break into. The fairytale of Leicester City winning the Premier League a couple of years ago came after decades of dominance by a handful of very wealthy clubs backed by even wealthier investors and owners. The reason why Leicester’s win was so truly unexpected is because pundits and commentators had felt that it would be impossible for any club without significant financial resources to be able to compete against the so-called “big six.” The European Super League would cement the “big six” at the top of the English game, doling out huge sums of money to them to keep them at the top of the league in perpetuity. There would never be another Leicester or Bolton Wanderers winning the Premier League – and that’s exactly the scenario that the European Super League is designed to create.

That’s bad sportsmanship. It’s antithetical to the nature of free and fair sporting competition. By further eroding a sport already awash with near-incomprehensible amounts of money, the European Super League would effectively kill any real competition at the top. The other 14 clubs of the Premier League will be locked in a perpetual battle for seventh place – and whoever finishes seventh might as well be crowned champions, because the top six places will be effectively beyond the reach of any club without the financial backing of this new institution.

Hopefully this proposal will be shown the red card.

FIFA, UEFA, and the Premier League all bear a degree of responsibility for what’s happening, though. And they are not innocent parties to this clusterfuck. I’m old enough to remember the controversy in 1992 when the Premier League was set up, breaking away from the Football League. The clubs were tempted by money then, just as they are now. For the Premier League to criticise the European Super League for doing something superficially similar is at least slightly hypocritical, and sadly this gives ammunition to proponents of the European Super League.

UEFA and FIFA are both institutionally corrupt, with members quite literally and demonstrably accepting bribes. The only reason next year’s World Cup will be hosted by Qatar (or the 2018 iteration was hosted by Russia) is because of bribes paid to voting members. That’s just one example, and both institutions have been plagued by bribery and corruption going back decades, putting their own interests ahead of the wider game.

FIFA – football’s governing body – is institutionally corrupt and has been for decades.

So there isn’t really a “good guy” to back in this fight. It’s the billionaires versus the billionaires in a battle for power, control, and the right to make as much additional money as possible – on top of the money they already have. It almost doesn’t matter which side wins, because the “big six” English clubs, and their equivalents in other countries, will still dominate the game regardless thanks to their international owners and the vast sums of money in the game. But that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a “lesser of two evils,” nor that the European Super League is somehow okay.

Despite the money sloshing around football, there are still surprises. Leicester’s title-winning season is a recent one, but we can also point to the successes of clubs like Wigan and Portsmouth in the FA Cup, Leeds’ successful return to the Premier League in their first season after promotion, and in Europe the likes of Montpellier’s title win in Ligue 1. Even with all the money at the top of the game, football can still be unpredictable – and that’s why so many fans around the world love it.

Portsmouth’s 2008 win shows that the FA Cup can still create wonderful surprises.
Photo Credit: Jon Candy profile, CC BY-SA 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0, via Wikimedia Commons

Taking away the most basic tenet of sportsmanship and competition – fairness – would leave European football in a very dark place. Those fairytale seasons, already eroded by the long dominance of a select few wealthy clubs, would fade into history, with all but a handful of clubs effectively relegated to second-tier status.

This is why there’s so much backlash, even if not everyone commenting on the situation can fully put it into words. A European Super League in which fifteen clubs can compete against one another in perpetuity with no threat of relegation is not only unfair as a concept in itself, but that unfairness would not be contained and would spill over into every other league on the continent. The crux of why fans of all clubs – even those proposing to join the new league – are united in opposition is because everyone recognises the inherent unfairness of the proposal, and how that unfairness would kill sporting competition.

This proposal is all about money and power – and retaining both permanently for the big clubs.

So what measures can domestic leagues, as well as bodies like FIFA and UEFA, take to prevent this from happening, especially given how far advanced the plans seem to be?

Because this is a fight over money – and the television and broadcast rights that give whoever wins the right to make money – simply expelling the teams involved, as some have suggested, doesn’t seem viable. The Premier League would lose out in that scenario, because the broadcast rights would suddenly bring in far less revenue if the likes of Manchester United and Chelsea aren’t involved. This is the game of brinksmanship that the European Super League is playing – effectively throwing down the gauntlet and saying “you can’t make money without us.”

That said, there are measures short of full expulsion that could be taken – but they’d only work if every league in Europe and FIFA can all agree. First of all, there could be automatic points deductions for all participating teams. A deduction of ten points is automatically applied to any English teams that go into administration (i.e. that become financially insolvent), and something similar could be applied in this case. This would mean all European Super League clubs begin their domestic campaigns with -10 or even -15 points, which might go some way to restoring some semblance of fairness at the top, allowing the rest of the league to potentially compete on fairer terms with an effective handicap – giving them back their shots at the championship.

Barcelona (Camp Nou stadium pictured) are one of twelve teams planning to join the European Super League.

Secondly, one proposal UEFA threw out last night was that any individual player who plays in the European Super League would be banned from international competition, including in the World Cup. This sanction would make a lot of players think twice before signing for a European Super League side, even if a lot of money were on the table. Some would still take the money, of course, but any player with dreams of representing their country would think twice.

This proposal in particular is a threat to the European Super League. If it could be expanded, with players who play in the European Super League banned from all other competitions including domestic leagues and cups, the only players who would ever agree to participate would be has-beens. The European Super League, if it were forced to operate under such restrictions, would end up looking like the Chinese league or, at best, Major League Soccer in the United States – where players who used to be good enough to play in the big European leagues essentially go to retire!

Banning players from international competition could be a way to fight back against this proposal.

By pushing restrictions onto the individual players instead of (or as well as) the clubs themselves, and remaining united in doing so, the big European leagues, UEFA, and FIFA could drive a wedge between the clubs and their players, forcing players to choose. Maybe this kind of tactic feels shady and wrong, but if it kills a bad proposal it would be worth it. Though the big clubs do wield a lot of power, they don’t hold all the cards, and if players felt that signing for Manchester United would be bad for their career, you’d see better players moving away from those big clubs, and the already-boring European Super League would look worse and worse.

And that’s another good point. The European Super League will be boring, or at least unexciting. A league where there’s no relegation for the big clubs has no threat, and with no threat comes no drama. There’ll be no reason for players to push themselves in the final minute to score that amazing goal because… what’s the point? Once you’re in the European Super League you’re set for life, apparently. If you lose fifteen matches in a row there’s no consequence, except perhaps for the manager who’ll lose his job! By destroying one of the most basic elements of sporting competition – relegation – the European Super League doesn’t have much to offer anyway.

But whatever you think about these clubs and this announcement, it all comes back to one central point: a European Super League with permanent positions for wealthy clubs is inherently and inescapably unfair. There will be consequences, somehow, for any clubs that go down this road. I just hope that, when the dust settles, football isn’t too badly damaged by this latest self-inflicted wound.

All brands, clubs, etc. mentioned above are the trademark or copyright of their respective owners. Some stock images courtesy of Pixabay. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.