WORLD CUP: INFANTINO’S RAGE AND QATAR’S $220B WAR CHEST

Qatar got away with many ‘sins’ because of its deep pockets, writes Paul Nwabuikwu

Twenty-four hours to the start of the World Cup, as excited fans from around the world made their way to host nation Qatar by land, sea and air, FIFA president Gianni Infantino launched a spirited defence of the organization handling of the World Cup that was part Oprah Winfrey, part history lesson, part lecture and one hundred percent exasperation. It was clear that the soft-spoken Italian had gotten absolutely tired of the constant sniping from the media about aspects of the execution of the most expensive World Cup in history.

In the lead up to the tournament, criticism of Qatar’s treatment of the migrant workers who built the glitzy stadia, hotels and other infrastructure were particularly strident. It is estimated that thousands of the workers died in the course of the World Cup project. But the loud protests about the last minute decision to ban the sale of alcohol around the stadia seemed to be the final straw for Infantino. And he let loose at the final pre-tournament press conference. Infantino’s primary targets were his fellow Europeans who are the most passionate Caucasian lovers of football. He made no effort to filter his words: “We are told to make many lessons from some Europeans, from the Western world. I’m European. I think for what we Europeans have been doing for 3,000 years around the world, we should be apologising for the next 3,000 years before starting to give moral lessons to people.”

Infantino didn’t stop there. He proceeded to accuse his continental kinsmen of gross hypocrisy: “How many of these European companies who earn millions and millions from Qatar or other countries in the region – billions every year – how many of them have addressed migrant-worker rights? I have the answer: none of them because if they change the legislation it means less profits.” He defended FIFA’s business track record as more ethical under his watch than that of the European nations that much of the criticism of FIFA has been coming from.

Infantino basically threw away his talking points at the press conference and spoke from the heart about the issues that have kept him awake at night since he was elected FIFA president. Given that he is sure of a second term from March next year as an unopposed candidate for the position, his “to hell with all of you” approach is perhaps understandable.

As in many other issues of global relevance and visibility, there’s no doubt that Infantino’s calling out of Europe’s (read: western) performative criticism of the World Cup has a lot of truth in it. The middle finger to some western critics is well deserved. Even though football is the ultimate global sport, the west is fond of deploying its disproportionate influence at the decision-making levels in an arrogant, often non-inclusive manner. They like to carry on as if they are doing a favour to rest the world, as if the right to host the World Cup is a favour granted the less deserving countries, a favour the unworthy recipients should be eternally grateful for and one that can be taken away or somehow degraded if the “natives” prove unworthy of the honour.

No doubt, there is a strong whiff of paternalistic arrogance in the attitude of the western lords of the manor in world football. Or – to switch metaphors – their behaviour is reminiscent of that of the badly behaved child who has seized the ball at a neighbourhood football game and is now exercising “ownership” rights by deciding if the game can go on – and how it will be played.

The experiences of two recent World Cup hosts – Brazil and South Africa – are still fresh in the minds of many critics of the west. Both nations endured extensive western media criticism over their alleged lack of readiness before and during the tournament. It got so bad in South Africa’s case that a British “expert” predicted an earthquake that happily didn’t materialize until the end of the event.    

Beyond alcohol and the rights of migrant workers, there has also been a constant drumbeat of snide references to the circumstances in which Qatar was given the right to host the tournament. Former President Sepp Blatter took the issue to a ridiculous level when he recently asserted that the decision which was taken during his tenure was a “mistake”.

The question is: if Qatar was allowed to retain the rights, presumably because there was no good reason to take it away, why not simply allow the country – and the rest of the world – to settle down and enjoy the preparations and the tournament? Europe, as her son at the helm of global football has pointed out, is in no position to feel superior in this or other matters. As the Good Book put it: “If you, O Lord, should mark iniquities, who could stand?” As Infantino would agree: “Not Europe or the rest of the west”.

Despite the forgoing, there are legitimate questions to be asked about FIFA’s handling of the alcohol issue. Infantino responded to criticism of the updated no alcohol sales policy around the stadia by quipping that fans should be able to survive two hours without alcohol. But his flippant dismissal has not done justice to the issue.

Four years ago, FIFA forced Brazil to change its policy of not selling alcohol around the stadia to enable fans indulge close to the game. No doubt, this was in response to pressure from the powerful alcohol sponsors of the tournament. So FIFA’s decision to do away with alcohol this time after caving in to pressure from the hosts cannot be defined as the right step based on commonsense. Commonsense should not be so fragile or accommodating to four-year, renewable expiry dates.

Perhaps Infantino, in the interest of the historical and contemporary truth which he is passionate about, should admit that Qatar got its way because no advertiser could compete with the clout of the spunky nation’s unprecedented $220b budget for the tournament.

Nwabuikwu is a member of THISDAY Editorial Board