[Football] Who’s not watching the World Cup?

[nicko31]

I did not want to watch the WC as it’s tainted by venue and I am not a die hard England fan. However I have to hold my hand up and say that I started watching in earnest after the first couple shock results. Have to say I reckon it’s been the best/most exciting WC group stage that I have ever seen. Having so many Albion and ex Albion players is a big bonus, and seeing so many MOTM performances by Albion players is fantastic.

England are doing OK too…I am not quite on that bandwagon yet though….

Yes I'd put myself in that camp. I have found it hard to ignore, its winter, my kids are really into it and also as we have so many BHA current and past players involved and then making history with assists and goals.

It does seem as though the boycott is largely from Europe. Fans that have lived under despots in South America seem far less bothered. Look at the Argentina support yesterday versus the Dutch

 

[Springal]

It does seem as though the boycott is largely from Europe. Fans that have lived under despots in South America seem far less bothered. Look at the Argentina support yesterday versus the Dutch

agree with that - Mexicans , Ecuadoreans , Argentinians best supported. But generally they always have a lot of fans at all tournaments

 

[Randy McNob]

to anyone not watching - boy have you missed some cracking football

 

[Cheshire Cat]

I've rather lost interest since Ecuador went out

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Sports-washing of course has been suggested as to intent, however how effective has the washing been to date during this World Cup?

I don’t see how the Qatar regime has benefited from this world up at all, if anything it’s shined a light on the social failings beyond the footballing audience.

That said, is this just the start of more high profile events being placed there on the back of “winning” the WC bid in the future, which of course will probably be equally as ineffective, unless actual change is seen?

Precisely. I am told by a dullard and others that simply having the compo there legitimizes the right of the state to exist according to its own customs and laws, thereby making its existence more secure. (AKA 'sportswashing'). But...

My view is that the football has been great but the Qatar regime remains shit, and I will continue to talk their country down. Nothing was washed for me. Also the chances of more goons being awarded the compo in future seems likely to have been reduced rather than increased.

One goal of spreading the WC to tin pot states was to widen participation. I await the reports on how participation for women and minorities has been widened in Qatar over the coming year or so.

 

[Paulie Gualtieri]

Precisely. I am told by a dullard and others that simply having the compo there legitimizes the right of the state to exist according to its own customs and laws, thereby making its existence more secure. (AKA 'sportswashing'). But...

My view is that the football has been great but the Qatar regime remains shit, and I will continue to talk their country down. Nothing was washed for me. Also the chances of more goons being awarded the compo in future seems likely to have been reduced rather than increased.

One goal of spreading the WC to tin pot states was to widen participation. I await the reports on how participation for women and minorities has been widened in Qatar over the coming year or so.

Agree,

It hasn’t been a PR success that they were hoping for despite have 10 years to prepare for it.

USA / Mexico /Canada is a safe bet and I’d assume 2030 will be Europe or maybe Australia.

Don’t see football returning to the region for some time.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

to anyone not watching - boy have you missed some cracking football

Seems most have given in and stopped moaning and started to watch it.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Seems most have given in and stopped moaning and started to watch it.

What are you basing that on ? Have any of the boycotters said they are abandoning their protest ? All I have seen is the indifferent showing some interest. That’s quite a long way from the level of involvement in previous competitions. I doubt there will ever again be a winter World Cup or one in a country with such offensive laws.

 

[Icy Gull]

Nearly well done Icy. Got to agree that thrashing Iran 6-2 was a difficult watch which saw die hard England fans throwing themselves off the bandwagon in record numbers

And, on a serious note, this has been an absolutely superb World Cup with shocks, great goals, shit goals and lots of Brighton and Ex-Brighton involvement. If you're still holding out, fair play to you

Going to take something special to make me leap out of my seat for an England goal, not saying it won’t happen and I hope it does. If we beat Senegal and end up playing one of the top teams and competing well, I’ll probably be all in

I will avoid wading in on the match day thread if we go out with a whimper again though….I hope.

 

[1066familyman]

Precisely. I am told by a dullard and others that simply having the compo there legitimizes the right of the state to exist according to its own customs and laws, thereby making its existence more secure. (AKA 'sportswashing'). But...

My view is that the football has been great but the Qatar regime remains shit, and I will continue to talk their country down. Nothing was washed for me. Also the chances of more goons being awarded the compo in future seems likely to have been reduced rather than increased.

One goal of spreading the WC to tin pot states was to widen participation. I await the reports on how participation for women and minorities has been widened in Qatar over the coming year or so.

So to be clear, are you saying a state shouldn't have a right to exist according to its own customs and laws?

Do you wish for a return to pre 1971?

 

[amexer]

Have dipped t in and out. Only reason to be honest is only football I really get into is watching Albion and that includes England. However have been drawn to games when an Albion player is playing.

 

[Motogull]

Still haven't watched any of it. Haven't opened a match/day thread either.

 

[Zeberdi]

So to be clear, are you saying a state shouldn't have a right to exist according to its own customs and laws?

Do you wish for a return to pre 1971?

Of course a nation has a right to exist as an independent state if that has been declared but do States have a right to exist in a way that their customs and laws are contrary to universal concepts of Human Rights?

When Qatar became independent in 1971, it also became member of the UN and a signatory of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1971 - Qatar is omnipresent in many of the UN’s international activities.

So no, IMO a state shouldn’t have a right to exist in a way that their domestic governance is very much at odds with its purported declarations on Human Rights through membership of the UN and its overt aspirations to be a significant influence on the world stage, particularly in relation to global sporting interests.

(My deep antipathy to Qatar hosting the WC though has been somewhat tempered by them crashing out spectacularly from Group with one goal, no wins and a GD of -6. )

 

[nicko31]

agree with that - Mexicans , Ecuadoreans , Argentinians best supported. But generally they always have a lot of fans at all tournaments

Amazed at the Argentina support, its a long way for Qatar and not exactly that wealthy. But I guess some have money and plenty of it

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

So to be clear, are you saying a state shouldn't have a right to exist according to its own customs and laws?

Do you wish for a return to pre 1971?

Er.....no. I said (have another read).

Of course every country has a right to exist according to its own customs and laws. Just as every other country has the right to engage with them, disengage, or make war.

Now consider one end of the spectrum where a state has a religion that makes life awkward for women, and has the death penalty for serious crime. Should they get the world cup? Probably. Should we engage with them? Perhaps. Should we get on our hind horse a bit about their human rights? Perhaps. By engaging with them do we legitimize their existence and 'condone' their customs and laws? Certainly.

Now consider a country that executes its LGBTQ+ citizens, and arrests and murders women who haven't covered their hair? Try answering all the questions above. I appreciate that Iran have neither the infrastructure nor inclination to host a world cup, but what if they did?

Dealing with other nations seems to me to be a decision-making a slope rather than entirely black and white process. The decision (made by our dear leaders under the influence of the permanent secretaries) whether to engage appears to be predicated initially by how much do we (the UK) gain by engaging and how much do we lose. If we consider that what we gain outweighs what we lose, then we can move on to consider the wider morality (defined how? I don't know). If, after all this pondering, we consider the moral imperative not sufficient to entirely preclude engagement, we have to ask ourselves whether, if we engage, there is a hope the buggers will move away from 'barbarism' (according to our own laws and customs) as a consequence of our engagement. None of this discourse informed the award of the WC to Qatar, sadly, it would seem. Have they moved to make any concessions? Hmmm....

Yet....on this occasion I feel there is some hope that Qatar want to be part of the wider world and so will have to think about changing some of their ways. Whether they are prepared to do so is moot.

This is why many people feel that allowing Qatar to host the world cup was pointless and lets them off the hook.

That said, there are some who consider that the US should not get the WC due to their use of the death penalty. Our sliding scale of weighing opprobrium is quite a personal thing. Hence, I guess, this thread.

 

[Greg Bobkin]

to anyone not watching - boy have you missed some cracking football

Ah well

 

[Zeberdi]

Yet.... I feel there is some hope that Qatar want to be part of the wider world and so will have to think about changing some of their ways...

This is why many people feel that allowing Qatar to host the world cup was pointless and lets them off the hook.

See my earlier post -

When Qatar became independent in 1971, it also became member of the UN and a signatory of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1971 - Qatar is omnipresent in many of the UN’s international activities.

I agree with your sentiments but just to clarify - Qatar are already part of the wider world and have voluntarily signed up to the UDHR when they became an independent state, which declares that

” human rights are universal – to be enjoyed by all people, no matter who they are or where they live. The Universal Declaration includes civil and political rights, like the right to life, liberty, free speech and privacy.”

Universal Declaration of Human Rights | United Nations

A milestone document in the history of human rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights set out, for the first time, fundamental human rights to be universally protected. It has been translated into over 500 languages.

www.un.org

Anyone who thinks the decision to go with Qatar hosting the WC can be justified as an opportunity to think some of our ideals will rub off on her is not understanding the whole picture.

Anyone apologising for Qatar and defending her right to live by her own laws and customs without Western ideals being imposed on her is also not seeing the whole picture

Qatar herself has accepted our universal understanding of human rights through international treaties!

So, yes, having the World Cup in Qatar absolutely legitimises her ongoing failure to uphold the ideals as encapsulated in the UDHR of which she is a signatory and makes a mockery of the UN as being an organisation to effect change if it is not expedient for Countries to do so.

And yes, there is a failure of the international arena to boycott the activities of other UN nation states when it is not financially or politically expedient to do so - in terms of sanctioning human rights abuse, the UN is a toothless tiger, so states get away with it but it should not be said that Qatar’s right to self-determination and her right to self govern in the way she feels fit is the issue here.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

See my earlier post -


I agree with your sentiments but just to clarify - Qatar are already part of the wider world and have voluntarily signed up to the UDHR when they became an independent state, which declares that

” human rights are universal – to be enjoyed by all people, no matter who they are or where they live. The Universal Declaration includes civil and political rights, like the right to life, liberty, free speech and privacy.”

Universal Declaration of Human Rights | United Nations

A milestone document in the history of human rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights set out, for the first time, fundamental human rights to be universally protected. It has been translated into over 500 languages.

www.un.org

Anyone who thinks the decision to go with Qatar hosting the WC can be justified as an opportunity to think some of our ideals will rub off on her is not understanding the whole picture.

Anyone apologising for Qatar and defending her right to live by her own laws and customs without Western ideals being imposed on her is also not seeing the whole picture

Qatar herself has accepted our universal understanding of human rights through international treaties!

So, yes, having the World Cup in Qatar absolutely legitimises her ongoing failure to uphold the ideals as encapsulated in the UDHR of which she is a signatory and makes a mockery of the UN as being an organisation to effect change if it is not expedient for Countries to do so.

And yes, there is a failure of the international arena to boycott the activities of other UN nation states when it is not financially or politically expedient to do so - in terms of sanctioning human rights abuse, the UN is a toothless tiger, so states get away with it but it should not be said that Qatar’s right to self-determination and her right to self govern in the way she feels fit is the issue here.

Thanks. That's very clear.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Of course a nation has a right to exist as an independent state if that has been declared but do States have a right to exist in a way that their customs and laws are contrary to universal concepts of Human Rights?

When Qatar became independent in 1971, it also became member of the UN and a signatory of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1971 - Qatar is omnipresent in many of the UN’s international activities.

So no, IMO a state shouldn’t have a right to exist in a way that their domestic governance is very much at odds with its purported declarations on Human Rights through membership of the UN and its overt aspirations to be a significant influence on the world stage, particularly in relation to global sporting interests.

(My deep antipathy to Qatar hosting the WC though has been somewhat tempered by them crashing out spectacularly from Group with one goal, no wins and a GD of -6. )

Bit of a dangerous road to travel. It is not inconceivable that one day the Chinese/Russian worldview takes route in the UN and around the developing world. I have no intention of ever giving up my values regardless of what happens elsewhere. Persuasion and modelling of our principles is still the best way forward.

 

[Zeberdi]

Thanks. That's very clear.

sorry, the whole post wasn’t directed at you - I just wanted to clarify why we are beyond ‘there being some hope Qatar want to be part of the wider world’ - she already is in terms of international human rights treaties - she’s just not abiding by them!