Finding Common Ground: The World Cup in Qatar
Introducing our new column: Finding Common Ground! This month, Evie and Sam discussed the World Cup in Qatar.
On a rainy Leeds evening in World Cup season, we sat down with two of Leeds’ own to discuss the nature of this year’s games. Sam Stephens White and Evie Yabsley shared their opinions on their decision to watch the World Cup, despite their concerns about its host. We struggled to actually find a Leeds student boycotting the event, suggesting that it has been widely accepted among students to overlook the issues of this year’s World Cup, instead, choosing to sit down at the pub with a pint to enjoy the game.
In this edition of ‘Finding Common Ground’ Sam and Evie discussed; the human rights abuses taking place in Qatar, the effectiveness of a boycott, and whether we should be politicising football in the first place.
For Sam, the central issue is that participation in the World Cup can be interpreted as supporting Qatar and its discriminatory and abusive laws. He emphasised that this economic contribution from the football points to the complacency of FIFA and other football federations. We returned to this argument at the end of the discussion, when both students agreed that the blame should be shifted to FIFA itself.
Our other debater, Evie, considered that there may be some positive change resulting from this year’s World Cup, as discussion surrounding this year’s games, has drawn more awareness to the situation in Qatar. Moreover, she highlighted that some issues that have been raised about the Qatari government are being seen first hand, for example the banning of the OneLove armbands from players and sports presenters. Although still critical of the exploitation and record of human rights abuses, Evie felt that it may be a “negative influence with a positive outcome”.
The discussion also transitioned into a question of whether we should be politicising football. It could also be argued that the purpose of sport is about unity and it is bringing people together, but that the huge influence of football all around the world could be used to do some good. There have been some political statements in the World Cup, such as the Iranian football team choosing not to sing their national anthem as a form of political protest. For Sam it was important to acknowledge that in the past there has been a tendency to take the blame off the Western governments and see more blame in Eastern governments because of how different it is to Western society and politics, which he felt could be a narrow minded Western perspective.
Evie and Sam both found their ‘common ground’ in the view that FIFA should shoulder the blame for allowing the World Cup to be hosted in a country with a multitude of human rights violations. Both students felt that boycotting watching the World Cup wouldn’t make as much difference as holding the Qatari government, but also FIFA, to account for their responsibility in the issues that the football has raised this year.
Evie’s Post-Debate Reflections
What were you hoping to gain from the debate?
“I was hoping to hear someone else’s perspective and was glad to discuss with someone with the same opinion as me.”
Strongest argument?
“I think the most interesting point was about who is to blame. I feel like FIFA is really slipping under the rug and it’s frustrating that FIFA gets away with so much corruption and it’s really unfair. I think that was a really good point to raise.”
Has your opinion changed?
“I hate FIFA a bit more than I did already.”
Do you think the conversation was productive?
“I think it was productive in that we’re all on the same page of raising awareness of the issues in Qatar.”
Was there something that you would have wanted to discuss that was not raised?
“If we’d had more time it would have been good to find someone of more of a different view, as we’ve got a more western view.”
Sam’s Post-Debate Reflections
What were you hoping to gain from the debate?
“It’s interesting to, even though we’re both not boycotting it, discuss more complex details about it and to consider different opinions about it.”
Strongest argument?
“I think Evie’s point about the direct impact the law had in terms of the workers rights. It was an important point to make that alongside the blame on FIFA there should also be accountability of the World Cup for the loss of life.”
Has your opinion changed?
“I think my opinion has been enforced by the discussion.”
Do you think the conversation was productive?
“I gained a broad hearing of lots of opinions that we considered, but we have similar opinions, so it’s hard to gain a lot.”
Was there something that you would have wanted to discuss that was not raised?
“It would be interesting to talk to someone who is from the Middle East, because we’ve got quite a narrowed minded view, to get the other side of it would be quite interesting.”
Image Credit: Ana Hill Lopez-Menchero and Ruby Wait-Weguelin
