It was Lionel Messi’s defining moment. After a final full of drama, he had finally captured the one trophy that had eluded him throughout his illustrious career––the World Cup. With as many as 1.5 billion people watching around the globe, Argentina’s captain crossed the podium behind his teammates to finally lift soccer’s most precious prize. But before Messi could hoist the World Cup trophy in front of the world, Qatar Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani stopped him and cloaked him in a bisht––a translucent black robe traditionally worn by men at times of celebration in the Arab world. Once cloaked, Messi proceeded to the trophy and his teammates. The party was on.
Though Qatar spent a record amount of money on their World Cup (an estimated $220 billion), the images of Messi cradling, kissing, and eventually hoisting the World Cup trophy all while wearing the bisht over his Argentina jersey were priceless. As Miguel Delaney of The Independent wrote, “[The bisht] put Qatar front and centre, forever associated with this immortal image in a manner that had been the grand calculation of this entire tournament.” For this reason, the World Cup was a tremendous success for Qatar. In terms of the advancement of international human rights standards, however, the legacy of the Qatar World Cup is far more complicated.
In hosting the World Cup, Qatar’s goal was to legitimize its position as a major player in the global economy and international politics by showcasing the best of its country and culture. The Qatari ruling family’s calculation was that the positive feelings associated with the world’s most popular sports competition would shed positive light on Qatar, masking its abysmal human rights record and expanding its role in the international political economy beyond liquid natural gas exports. This calculation largely paid off, as newspapers and media outlets around the world sang the Qatar World Cup’s praises when the tournament concluded. As Tariq Panja of The New York Times stated, “In the end, after a tournament shadowed by controversy since the host rights were awarded, Qatar had the turn in the global spotlight it sought.” Eventually, Qatar hopes to use this increased visibility and improved reputation to become a larger player in international conflict resolution efforts, especially in the Gulf region.
Qatar’s global aspirations are hampered by the country’s human rights record, which is especially poor when it comes to the treatment of migrant workers. Qatari officials have confirmed that 40 South Asian migrant workers died while working on projects related to the World Cup. However, some media outlets estimated that the true death toll is far higher. The Guardian reported that 6,500 South Asian migrant workers have died since 2010, when Qatar was scandalously awarded the World Cup by FIFA. Qatar pushed back on this figure, suggesting that many of these workers were not migrants and that they had lived in Qatar long before the World Cup.
Regardless, there is a clear problem with how Qatar treats its migrant workers. The working conditions in Qatar in the lead-up to the World Cup were grueling and abusive: Many migrant workers worked between 14 and 18 hours a day, with no days off in extremely hot conditions. Migrant workers were also frequently subjected to degrading abuse from employers. They were verbally harassed, slapped, and spat on. Abusive employers also revoked workers’ housing permits, threatened deportation, and withheld wages. Additionally, despite the minimum wage being 1,000 Qatari riyals ($275) a month, reports from Human Rights Watch state that migrant workers in Qatar were paid as little as 750 Qatari riyals ($206) a month, a large portion of which had to be used to pay off their own recruitment fees (fees associated with attaining a job in Qatar).
Despite these statistics, some proponents have defended Qatar’s treatment of migrant workers. They point out that many migrant workers made the decision to come to Qatar under their own volition, and the wages they earn––though extremely low compared to Western countries––can often be life-changing. Defenders of Qatar also highlight that attention to the World Cup led to changes in the country’s policies, at least nominally. In 2017, under international pressure brought about partly by anticipation of the World Cup, Qatar made a pact with the International Labour Organization (ILO) to “align its laws and practices with international labour standards.” After signing this agreement, the Qatari government passed numerous pieces of legislation to improve conditions for migrant workers and ratified two international human rights treaties. It must be noted, however, that enforcement of these new laws has been weak, leaving many migrant workers vulnerable to exploitative employers. Furthermore, Qatar’s ratification of the international human rights treaties did not come without reservations, as it refused concessions like allowing workers to unionize.
The opinions of many of the most prominent soccer pundits in Europe epitomized the sides of the Qatar World Cup debate. Former English striker Ian Wright expressed feeling conflicted about working a World Cup in a country with the human rights record of Qatar. Manchester United and Ireland legend Roy Keane went further, saying bluntly, “[FIFA] shouldn’t have the World Cup here …You can’t treat people [the way Qatar has]… Just to dismiss human rights flippantly because of a football tournament… it’s not right.” Former Manchester United captain Gary Neville took the opposite approach, stating “It’s football that’s … brought the scrutiny … on these challenges that exist in this part of the world … Can you not enjoy a sporting tournament and … come over and challenge the system over here, but also bring football to different parts of the world and try [to] advance things?”
While Neville’s argument that the World Cup brought international scrutiny to Qatar’s shortcomings is certainly true, by the end of the tournament, the spectacle of the actual sporting competition, especially the legendary final between France and Argentina, did seem to overshadow the human rights concerns that were at the forefront of public discussion beforehand. As French newspaper Le Monde wrote, “The formidable sporting spectacle offered on Sunday, December 18, crowned more than just Lionel Messi.” Qatar’s human rights concerns took a back seat and were not addressed as effectively as they could have been. Though the tournament did bring marginal change to Qatari law regarding migrant labor, the changes were not adequately carried out and did not prevent the deaths and suffering of thousands in the lead-up to the competition.
While the World Cup should be a mechanism for global unity and celebration beyond just Western states, it must only be rewarded to countries that are willing to meet international human rights standards. FIFA must have a higher threshold for host nations. In order to host a World Cup, a country must meet enforceable standards that are consistent with international treaties. Because the World Cup is a lucrative and globally popular event, countries will clean up their human rights records in order to host it. However, FIFA must not be easily satisfied by minimal, surface-level change; the organization must be strong in its support of human rights and live up to its moral responsibility as the governing body of the world’s favorite game.