As the soccer world prepares for its biggest event of the year, many are continuing to question the ethics of holding the 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar. Allegations of corruption and severe human rights violations have followed the preparations since the initial selection of Qatar as the host country in 2009. Multiple other factors, including Qatar’s own domestic crises, the history of anti-LGBTQ+ sentiment in the country and the question of the participation of Russian athletes have compounded the controversies even further. However, representatives of Qatar, as well as former FIFA president Sepp Blatter, have suggested that the claims of corruption and abuse are rooted in racism.

Qatar’s selection as the World Cup drew criticism after the country became the smallest ever country to host the tournament as well as only the second country to be awarded host after never having qualified for the event as a team. Qatar had also been branded a “high risk” host by FIFA due to its lack of sufficient facilities and the country’s hot climate. And yet, FIFA executives voted overwhelmingly in favor of Qatar across four rounds, beating out high-market destinations such as the United States, South Korea, Japan and Australia.

In 2011, former FA head Lord Triesman accused the representatives of Trinidad and Tobago and Paraguay as well as two other FIFA executives of “improper and unethical behavior” — including requesting and accepting bribes from Qatari officials in exchange for support for the country’s World Cup bid. Furthermore, a whistle-blower alleged that the former FIFA representatives for the Ivory Coast and Cameroon were paid $1.5 million each by Qatar in order to secure their vote. FIFA cleared Qatar of any wrongdoing in a report published in 2014, but a 2021 investigation by AP later revealed that Qatar had hired a former CIA officer to spy on the FIFA officials who had selected the host World Cup host in 2010.

Despite the allegations, Qatar moved ahead with the preparations and began construction on the infrastructure necessary to host the event. However, concerns were soon raised about the additional strain the World Cup placed on the already mistreated migrant workers in Qatar who suffer under the kafala system, a system imposed in many Gulf countries which creates a fixed sponsorship between migrant workers and their employers. Under the kafala system, employers are able to easily manipulate the dependence workers are forced to place on them, leading to millions of cases of abuse. The system, which often facilitates forced labor, is often likened to slavery.

Qatar’s foreign workforce — about 1.2 million workers originating primarily from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and the Philippines — make up 94% of its labor force and yet benefit from the least legal and economic protection in the country. The Guardian warned in 2013 that up to 4,000 workers could die during the World Cup preparations due to safety concerns and mistreatment, claiming migrant workers were denied food, water and adequate pay and safety measures. Workers later confirmed these accusations to Amnesty International, adding that they were subject to verbal abuse and threats alongside the deprivation of basic labor rights. In 2014, The Guardian reported that, as construction continued in Qatar, the death tolls of migrant workers were rapidly increasing.

Though Qatar introduced new reforms to the kafala system in 2020 — including allowing workers to change jobs without requiring their sponsor’s permission, a non-discriminatory minimum wage throughout the country, and the abolishment of the exit permit required to leave the country — millions of foreign workers had already suffered in order to prepare Qatar for the World Cup.

As Qatar tried to resolve the highly-publicized labor abuse scandal — one which caused both FIFA sponsors and fans to consider boycotting the event entirely — the country was embroiled in a diplomatic crisis which resulted in severed diplomatic relations between Qatar and several Gulf countries after Saudi Arabia accused Qatar of fostering terrorism. In the aftermath, some claimed that Qatar’s hosting duties were the root of the dispute, while others suggested that Qatar manufactured the crisis to try and “get away” from the event.

Qatar has also been criticized for the country’s conservative views concerning LGBTQ+ rights, with LGBTQ+ fans and players alike expressing their concerns about traveling to a country in which homosexuality is illegal. Qatari officials responded by assuring the public that pride flags would be allowed at the events, though Qatari Secretary-General al-Thawadi warned against LGBTQ+ public displays of affection in 2013, citing Qatari “culture and traditions.”

Though controversies internal and external threaten to overshadow the event, the 2022 World Cup is still set to happen in Qatar. The continued existence of this year’s Cup begs the question — if human rights abuses weren’t enough to cancel the event, what would it take? Maybe it’s time to reevaluate the human cost the world of international sports often generates.

The post Corruption and Controversy: The Upcoming 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

The Olympics and other international sporting events are often presented as moments in which the world comes together, putting aside differences for friendly competition. Yet, as the world watches from afar through television screens, the damage suffered by host countries is overlooked.    

In the last decade, Rio hosted two large-scale sporting events, the 2014 Fifa World Cup and the 2016 Summer Olympics. While there was some initial concern for the city’s capabilities, promises of structural improvements left local inhabitants hopeful. Instead, the events exacerbated existing issues and created a plethora of new problems. In preparation for the event, locals faced displacement to pave the way for new facilities and also increased police violence, as police cracked down on poor neighborhoods to polish Rio’s image. After the events occurred, Rio was left with several unfinished construction projects, unused and crumbling facilities like the Macaraña stadium and large amounts of debt — leaving Brazillians disillusioned. The trajectories of many host countries mirror that of Brazil, making it clear that mega-events like the Olympics inflict more harm than good. 

The damage of sporting mega-events not only occurs in the days after the closing ceremony but also arises throughout the preparation process. Rio, an extremely densely populated corner of the world, displaced thousands of people in order to build the massive facilities needed for the games. This displacement has occurred with almost every major sporting event, especially in heavily populated areas. Before the 2008 Beijing Olympic games, one million people were forced out of their homes. The majority of communities facing eviction are poor and lack the resources to advocate for themselves. 

Human rights violations due to event preparation are not limited to poorer and more populated countries. Qatar, a small wealthy Gulf country that is set to host the 2022 Fifa World Cup, is a large destination for migrant workers. There is extensive evidence of abuse and exploitation of migrant workers who have been working on World Cup construction. Thousands of workers continue to face appalling conditions, abysmal or withheld wages, and restrictions on passports, among many other violations. The poor working conditions have even resulted in hundreds of deaths caused by the country’s desire to entertain the rest of the world. Still, Fifa executives and board members have not held the country accountable. While organizations like Fifa and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) have the ability to take action against these host governments, they continually prioritize profit over human rights.  

The Olympics are used purposefully as a form of soft power. Through elaborate opening ceremonies and cutting-edge facilities, host countries are able to establish a level of prestige for themselves among the international community. During periods of heightened tension between the United States and Russia, the two often competed for soft power, using participation in large sporting events (or the boycotting of the events of each other) as a proxy for doing so. For nations that might be considered underdeveloped and lacking hard power, sporting events provide a ladder through which the power structure can be climbed. 

This may not always be ill-intentioned on the part of the host governments, but harmful consequences are repeatedly seen. Often, when countries bid to host an event, it’s during a time of prosperity. By the time the event approaches, the political and economic landscape could be drastically different. Brazil won the bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics in 2009 during an economic boom. In the following years, the country had fallen into a severe recession and was in the midst of a tumultuous political period; simultaneously, the country was burdened with an increasing budget for the upcoming Games. 

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has exhibited corrupt tendencies going back to its formation in 1894. The organization has been muddled with accusations of bribery and internal corruption as well. As of early March 2020 (when Covid-19 was emerging as a clear crisis), IOC President Thomas Bach said that “neither the word cancellation nor the word postponement was even mentioned” during an executive board meeting regarding the then-upcoming Tokyo Olympics. Though the virus did have a swift turnaround, it presented a clear enough threat at this point. Still, the IOC insisted that the Tokyo 2020 Summer Olympics would continue as scheduled. The board’s inability to express even the slightest concern during the pandemic’s inception indicates its tendency to prioritize the success of the event over the wellbeing of those involved. It was only when faced with pressure from athletes that postponing became a conceivable course of action for the organization.

As the previously postponed Tokyo 2020 games recently concluded, the reluctance to prioritize health has had its consequences. Japan is now scrambling to vaccinate its people as the virus surges, as it initially had a slow and late vaccine rollout. “Tokyo’s daily caseloads tripled during the Games…And as hospitals fill up, nearly 20,000 infected people are isolating at home, over 10 times more than a month ago,” as reported by AP News. If the wellbeing of Japan’s inhabitants was prioritized, the IOC would have further delayed the games and the Japanese government could have focused on improving its vaccine rollout and keeping Covid cases at bay. 

Even if a country is relatively stable and there isn’t an ongoing global pandemic, any underlying economic, political and social issues are further catalyzed by the preparation for these mega-events, many times triggering or exacerbating a crisis. Looking at future Olympics, for example, the same potential for disaster arises. The 2024 and 2028 Summer Olympics are set to take place in Paris and Los Angeles, respectively. These two major cities are considered safe bids; they are advanced metropolitan centers seemingly capable of hosting large-scale events. However, the danger of these two locations lies in the already-existing and bubbling crises that are bound to burst once preparation takes full swing.  

Los Angeles holds the highest rate of unhoused individuals in the country, linked to the city’s severe affordable housing crisis. Additionally, the city suffers from gentrification, in which disadvantaged communities have become slowly displaced from their neighborhoods. With these ongoing housing issues, there is no room for further strain from Olympic planning. The NOlympicsLA coalition was formed in 2017 to actively call for cancelation of the LA Games. The group states that the city’s existing crises like housing, police brutality and worker exploitation will be further aggravated by the games. In a similarly urban city like Paris that also severely lacks affordable housing, the same problems are likely to arise. 

Two pivotal players are actively ignoring the question of wellbeing and human rights: the host country, which seeks prestige and the chance to gain international recognition, and the IOC, which scouts the highest bidder with little regard for non-monetary causes. The blatant disregard for human rights makes mega-sporting events like the Olympics and the World Cup unethical as they are. The harm they inflict upon host countries lasts far beyond the temporary spotlight. While it is vital not to diminish the labor of the athletes, teams, and staff involved, it is imperative that the conversation surrounding these events highlights the detriment inflicted behind the glamour. 

There is a possibility for an ethical future of international sports. This, however, would require a mutual and corruption-free effort on the part of organizers and host countries alike. Considering that it’s unlikely that the international community will reach this stage in the short-term, nations around the world should focus on healing their existing crises, rather than exploiting their inhabitants for show. 

The post The Damage Behind the Glory: Ethical Concerns Behind International Sporting Events appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

In January 2014, North Korea announced that the annual Pyongyang Marathon would be open to amateur foreign runners. (In previous years, the event was only open to elite foreign runners.) Pyongyang seemed to be finally opening up to the rest of the world by hosting a public sporting event—a potentially fun and sportsmanlike way for foreigners to see North Korea. Even Americans, North Koreans’ greatest enemies, were allowed to register in a seemingly apolitical gesture. There were, of course, restrictions for all foreign runners, including a three-hour time limit for the full marathon and mandatory lodging at state-sanctioned hotels. To get into the marathon, runners had to register via a North Korean tour agency like the China-based Koryo Tours, a standard procedure for all tourists traveling to North Korea. The 2014 event was quite successful by North Korean standards: over 300 participants ran the 42-kilometer course through the nation’s capital. 

The anticipation for the 2015 marathon on April 12 was even higher. The North Korean government opened up several hundred spots in the race for foreigners and even disseminated a bizarre promotional video to a remixed version of A-Ha!’s Take On Me. Over 400 tourists registered for the race through Koryo Tours alone. That is, until the North Korean authorities banned foreigners from entering the country due to the Ebola scare. Beginning in October 2014, North Korea restricted its borders and quarantined all foreigners for 21 days. The race was not exempt from these constraints and all foreigners were banned from joining.

According to North Korean propaganda, Ebola is a deadly virus created by the US military to promote its interests abroad and undermine North Korea. With this mindset, it comes as no surprise that North Korea set up harsh restrictions against all foreigners, including those from countries with no exposure to the virus. In early March, the government finally lifted the travel ban and allowed foreigners to continue with their marathon tourism plans. However, the damage was already done. Although some runners had expected stumbling blocks during the registration process and adopted a “go with the flow” attitude, other runners canceled their reservations and race registrations. One tour group, Uri Tours, extended their registration deadline to March 20, but flights out of both Shanghai and Beijing were almost completely full. The only available flights were through Air Koryo, a poorly rated North Korean airline. Tour companies, marathon runners and spectators all got the short end of the stick because of North Korea’s politicized reaction to the Ebola virus. Ultimately, Pyongyang was able to recover from the drama; by April 12, the race had enough registered foreign runners (650) to set a record for its short history.

However, the North Korean government has bigger problems to worry about than the success of its marque marathon. The Pyongyang Marathon fell during a sensitive time; the DPRK’s relationship with the rest of the world has been particularly rocky since February 2013 when the country launched its third nuclear test. Since then, Kim Jong Un and his government have continually threatened their opponents with military force. The 2014 UN report on human rights abuses in the country added even more pressure; in October and November, the UN repeatedly recommended that the North Korean leadership be referred to the International Criminal Court. As expected, the government reacted negatively to these accusations against its supreme leader, calling the report “political fraud.” Furthermore, in March, the US and South Korean participated in joint military exercises, a practice that always elicits an angered response from the North Korean leadership. The military exercises are a display of the heavy military presence at the southern end of the DMZ and a reminder of exactly what North Korea is up against. Unfortunately, the military exercises sparked violent retribution. In March, a South Korean man attacked the US Ambassador to South Korea, Mark Lipper, claiming to be fighting for North-South reunification. The North Korean government called it “just punishment for US warmongers.” North Korea used similar language during the Sony hacks that involved the film “The Interview.”

The Pyongyang Marathon might have been a success for the country’s tourism industry, and even a sign of a thawing relationship; however, the race did not reveal any fundamental changes in the North Korean regime. It remains authoritarian and dependent on the propagation of a perceived conflict with the US and its allies to preserve domestic stability.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors, or governors.

The post Mind Games at the Pyongyang Marathon appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Every four years during the World Cup, the US press fixates collectively on the “will it/won’t it” question of soccer’s future. Each World Cup seems to bring higher TV ratings and more water cooler conversations than the last. Soccer optimists, imbued with fresh hope by scenes of fervent US supporters with painted faces and patriotic apparel, proclaim that soccer is here to stay in America.

Now that the US out of the 2014 World Cup after a 2-1 loss to Belgium, will this year be any different? Have the past few weeks been a sign that soccer will someday find a home as a mainstay of US sports, or are they just part of the same ebb-and-flow pattern that we see every four years?

First, a by-the-numbers look at this year’s World Cup viewership in the US.  According to Variety, the US-Portugal game drew 18.20 million viewers on ESPN; the US-Belgium game drew 16.49 million. Those two games were the two most watched US World Cup telecasts in American history. Through the Round of 16, ESPN and ABC averaged 4.08 million viewers – a record audience for the World Cup, up 44% from 2010 and 122% from 2006. According to the New York Post, WatchESPN (ESPN’s online viewing service) attracted an average audience of 1.1 million viewers per minute during this World Cup.

These numbers are to be expected. Aside from reasons related to the sport itself, this year’s record numbers likely have several major contributing factors.  According to the World Bank, the number of internet users in the US grew by 10.1 million from 2012 to 2013. According to comScore, the number of smartphone users in the US grew 7% from October 2013 to January 2014. Twitter’s userbase alone grew from 183 million at the end of 2013 to an estimated 227 million at the end of 2014 (estimated by CNET). The World Bank pegs the annual growth rate of the US population at 0.74% per year.

These greater numbers of internet users, smartphone users, and social media users mean that more people will hear about the World Cup and share news with their friends by roughly an order of magnitude more than they did during the previous World Cup. I am not making any statistical conclusions here, but I do think it’s fair to say that articles and opinions proclaiming soccer’s inevitable destiny as a major US sport need to be taken with a grain of salt if they tout World Cup viewing statistics as conclusive evidence.

Furthermore, the World Cup takes place during a dry period for other US sports. The NFL is at its least interesting (long past the conclusion of the postseason and about a month past the draft), the NBA has also put its postseason and draft in the rearview mirror, the drama of the NHL Stanley Cup has ended, and the Olympics is long over. The only major competing sport is MLB baseball, which is in the midst of its regular season. Additionally, summer brings a dearth of active TV shows, meaning that Americans have even less to watch.

What about factors related to soccer itself? Are Americans growing more accepting of a sport fundamentally different from the ones it already treasures? This question is tough to answer. Other than a few minor rule changes, soccer is the same as it was four years ago. All of the reasons provided by soccer critics as to why the sport will not catch on in the US (infrequent scoring, too many fake injuries, overly subjective officiating, and lack of sudden death overtime) are just as valid or invalid as they were four years ago. Shifting American sentiment toward soccer would be a result of externalities, and that discussion is best left for another time.

Perhaps one reason is a lack of initiative by the MLS. Recent years have seen the league take an aggressive approach to bolstering soccer’s popularity. According to The Economist, although average MLS attendance per game is down from 2013, it surpassed both the NBA and NHL with 18,600 spectators per match (although both of those leagues play considerably more games per season, making each game less appealing as an excursion). According to Forbes, the average MLS franchise is now worth $103 million, up more than 175% over the past five years. The league had 13 clubs in 2007 and will have 21 by next year. This year’s US World Cup team had ten players from the MLS compared to just four in 2010. Finally, the MLS signed a new eight-year deal worth an estimated $90 million per season that will result in more of its games being broadcast on more TV channels.

My theory is that Americans simply enjoy coming together to celebrate our national pride. Other than the Olympics, no major sporting events have the ability to unite entire countries in support of the same team. Take the support of the Iranian national team this year as an example. Following the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the Iranian government banned women from entering most sporting events because they deemed the enjoyment of sports by mixed crowds un-Islamic. This year, according to CNN, Tehran’s billboards advertising the World Cup featured only men, and state TV stations used a delay of several seconds to censor images of racy female fans so that viewers at home wouldn’t learn to accept mixed crowds. Nonetheless, some restaurants in Iran defied a national ban on broadcasting the World Cup this year, and men and women enjoyed the games together in public. Does this increased support from the female population indicate that soccer is growing in popularity in Iran? No – it shows that the Iranian people, this year more than ever, are eager to show their nationalism and support gender equality as a reaction to recent actions by the government.

Along the same lines, an ineffective Congress, an inconsistent Supreme Court, and an unpopular president have given US fans an increased longing to show their nationalism in 2014. Most notably, a volatile balance of power on the world stage has left Americans in uncertain territory. Both Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and ISIS’s first steps toward forging an Islamic state in the Middle East this year have spurred a growing national desire to display a uniquely American style of patriotism. Especially in the context of the World Cup, with competition unfolding at an international scale, patriotism is linked more to foreign policy than it is to domestic issues.

Perhaps the recent changes rolled out by the MLS are making a greater immediate impact on soccer than I’m giving them credit for, but I believe that the outpouring of US support for the Men’s National Team this year was more a result of our desire to be patriotic than it was a precursor to soccer’s rise to American prominence. Now more than ever, Americans are eager to come together and celebrate their national pride.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors, or governors.

The post World Cup Ratings a Sign of Patriotism, Not Soccer’s Rising Star appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.