How many immigrants does it take to host a world cup?

[Keyboard Warriors]

4000 apparently, that's how many are predicted to lose their lives during the construction work to prepare new Qatari stadiums for the 2022 FIFA world cup.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/m ... oll-report

A long-awaited independent report commissioned by the Qatari government in the wake of a series of revelations about the death toll among migrant workers is due to be published by the end of the week.

Representatives from the human rights subcommittee of the European parliament are in Doha this week to investigate the issue and have been told to expect significant changes to the labour laws in response to a wave of international criticism.

But it remains to be seen whether the reforms will go far enough for the human rights groups and trade unions that have been calling for wholesale changes to the kefala system that ties migrant workers to employers and forbids them from leaving the country without permission.

After the Guardian revealed that dozens of Nepalese workers were dying in Qatar, and many others were heavily indebted and effectively trapped, the country's labour ministry appointed DLA Piper to "independently review all the claims made".

It immediately had to deny claims that the independence of the report could be undermined because DLA Piper was also a paid lobbyist for Qatari news network al-Jazeera.

The Guardian subsequently revealed that more than 380 Nepalese workers had died in 2012 and 2013, and more than 500 Indian migrants have died in Qatar since January 2012, according to official figures.

The Qatari authorities have refused to expand on the causes of the deaths, not all of which were on construction sites.

A full transcript of the report, which details the atrocious conditions which many migrant workers face in Qatar, is available here: http://www.ituc-csi.org/IMG/pdf/the_cas ... 170314.pdf


There were calls for Russia to be stripped of the Sochi Olympics in line with their treatment of minority groups in their country, if that's the case I think calls for Qatar to be stripped of the World Cup should equally come forth. As the world cup is not for another eight years, there's surely ample time to find another host nation for it which is more deserving than Qatar. The selection process of Qatar was highly controversial to begin with and rife with allegations of bribery by Qatari officials, including more recent allegations made by the Telegraph.

Honestly, I'm perplexed as to why Qatar would have been legitimately chosen to host the World Cup in the first place. This issue is simply the latest in a long list of reasons as to why they should not have been gifted the opportunity in place of more deserving nations who do a much better job of upholding the principles which FIFA claims to defend, like zero-tolerance policies on racism and homophobia. However, FIFA surely cannot remain idle while their product, the World Cup, remains linked to this sort of worker abuse; they need to act in order to protect their reputation and I believe this necessitates removing the 2022 world cup from Qatar and re-running a host selection process with the middle east nation excluded from proceedings.

[AiliailiA]

Well OK. Let's re-run the selection process without the human-rights abusing nations.

No Qatar and no Australia. Who's left?

[Keyboard Warriors]

Well OK. Let's re-run the selection process without the human-rights abusing nations.

No Qatar and no Australia. Who's left?

Well, that's very interesting sentiment you seem to be pressing here.

[AiliailiA]

Well OK. Let's re-run the selection process without the human-rights abusing nations.

No Qatar and no Australia. Who's left?

Well, that's very interesting sentiment you seem to be pressing here.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/m ... ernational

Remind me who the other candidates were?

[Risottia]

4000 apparently, that's how many are predicted to lose their lives during the construction work to prepare new Qatari stadiums for the 2022 FIFA world cup.

Frankly, what irks me is not the predictions about the future... it's the current way many poor immigrants in many Gulf states are currently held.

Then again, what do you expect from Herr Kolonel Sepp "Gimme More Francs" Blatter?

[Gauthier]

Countless lives lost to prepare a global sporting event? In a book or movie that's just begging for a haunting.

[The Archregimancy]

I spent three months working in Qatar at the end of last year, so I have more direct - and more recent - experience of Qatar than most people in this forum.

I don't mean to downplay the construction worker issue, but it's hardly the only reason for opposing handing the World Cup to Qatar, and it's not as if Qatar's uniquely guilty of migrant worker abuse in this region (though I grant that it's worse in Qatar than in several neighbouring countries).

It's not even the accusations of bribery, the fact that any sex outside of marriage is illegal (so that neatly covers both homosexual sex and consensual heterosexual sex outside of marriage), the disastrous climate, or the fact that the local authorities clearly haven't thought through the implications of allowing alcohol consumption for thousands of football supporters within specific stadium-based fanzones while simultaneously maintaining a ban on public drunkenness.

No, it's because Qatar is a shit little country where nothing works properly.

The landscape is the most singularly, awfully dreary of any of the nearly 50 countries I've been to.

There are almost no towns or cities outside of Doha, which will force tens of thousands of football supporters to spend a month negotiating a city with terrible infrastructure and some of the most notoriously difficult traffic in the Gulf.

Doha has/by 2022 will have a couple of good museums, but there is almost nothing else to do, and almost nowhere else to go. There are, roughly speaking, two tourist attractions outside of Doha - the Inland Sea to the south, and the Al Zubarah World Heritage Site to the north; only Zubarah is reachable by a paved road. The only country with which Qatar shares a land border is the tourist paradise of Saudi Arabia.

The only two host 'cities' outside of the immediate Doha region are Al Khor and Madinat ash Shamal. I have been to both of these; both are very small for host 'cities'. Madinat ash Shamal, for example, is a small town of about 6000 residents. It has almost no facilities. It's to host a 45,330 seat stadium currently some 7 1/2 times larger than the host town's population. Al Khor contains the only hotel outside of Doha; it's dry.

Qatar is notorious here in the Gulf as being the regional country where nothing works as well as neighbouring countries despite the superficial veneer of western-style infrastructure; where the government is particularly opaque; where it's virtually impossible to work out who's doing what to whom and why. The new international airport, for example, is currently 5 years behind schedule; construction is in fact complete, the opening has been called off twice at the last minute (in April 2013 and January 2014) without any believable explanation forthcoming.

Even leaving aside all of the other problems - and they are manifest and manifold - it's a terrible choice for a host country in every way, shape, and form.

Handing the World Cup to Qatar was a disaster, and no one who hasn't been to Qatar likely fully understands why.

The best hope for getting the World Cup out of Qatar lies in local politics. Other GCC countries are currently furious with Qatar for a variety of reasons, and both the UAE and Saudi Arabia recently recalled their ambassadors. If Qatar loses local support - if other GCC countries start trying to argue against a Qatar World Cup - then the Qataris are done for. Either that or the entire FIFA executive council is arrested for corruption; but I consider the former scenario more likely.

[The Archregimancy]

Well, that's very interesting sentiment you seem to be pressing here.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/m ... ernational

Remind me who the other candidates were?

The full list was Qatar, the USA, South Korea, Japan, and Australia. Qatar led in all four rounds of voting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_and_2 ... #2022_bids

Sepp Blatter is widely believed to have voted for the USA, which came second. Michel Platini, the UEFA head currently trying to position himself as Blatter's successor, was one of Qatar's staunchest supporters.

And there lies the only other hope for moving the World Cup: internal FIFA politics - we have to hope that Blatter gets so angry with Platini that he tries to move the 2022 competition to his own original choice just to spite Platini.

[The Archregimancy]

Finally, the poll should have an option along the lines of:

"Yes, but the migrant worker issue is only one of several reasons why."

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

How about Brazil hosts it TWICE. After all we had a lot of effort in getting ready for the games and the next time we are selected once more decades in the future we'd have to do the shit all over again. And we evolve mostly with the notice that international observers are watching closely.

BTW this FIFA recommendation about our culture that was taken down after people were butthurt with the absolute truth is amazingly correct, and they were being far too gentle.

http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/internacional/en/sports/worldcup/2014/03/1429940-fifas-magazine-says-that-brazil-leaves-everything-to-the-last-minute-even-stadiums.shtml

"Queuing: Patiently waiting in line is not in a Brazilian's DNA, they prefer cultivated chaos." HAUEHAUHEUAHEUAHEUAHUHEUAHEU br br

"Relax and enjoy" Former São Paulo mayor and now important federal politician Marta Suplicy approves (gozar is for "to enjoy", "to mock" and "to joke" in Portugal, but here it mostly refers to having an orgasm, so relaxa e goza was an accidental - or not - innuendo of hers when referring to a chaotic situation including an enormous blackhole in our flight radars leading to our deadliest plane accident at the time - Air France's was later in 2009 - while she was Minister for Tourism, remembered to this day)

It is indeed ridiculous and they didn't even include it all (we are just not made to tolerate processes that are an obstacle, always expect us to, if not outright cheat, to cut across stuff, be it ethical/safe or not), but I think we are not like what Archregimancy described above anymore. [/half-joking]

[AiliailiA]

How about Brazil hosts it TWICE. After all we had a lot of effort in getting ready for the games and the next time we are selected once more decades in the future we'd have to do the shit all over again.

I'd say on principle repeat hosts are a bad idea. As a last resort maybe, but even so anywhere but Brazil. Because your team has won more WC's than any other.

How about England hosts it. The Olympic facilities won't be too out of date, and they've never hosted the WC.

EDIT: I'm wrong about that. I was looking at a list of flags, and didn't recognize the English flag without the other components of the Union Jack. England hosted in 1966.

And we evolve mostly with the notice that international observers are watching closely.

Brazil is probably not unique in that. Qatar might be more in need of some hothouse evolution than Brazil.

Lots more in your post which I'm not replying to because it seems rather off-topic.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

How about Brazil hosts it TWICE. After all we had a lot of effort in getting ready for the games and the next time we are selected once more decades in the future we'd have to do the shit all over again.

I'd say on principle repeat hosts are a bad idea. As a last resort maybe, but even so anywhere but Brazil. Because your team has won more WC's than any other.

How about England hosts it. The Olympic facilities won't be too out of date, and they've never hosted the WC.

Eh, I think I wouldn't object to a UK cup.

[AiliailiA]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/m ... ernational

Remind me who the other candidates were?

The full list was Qatar, the USA, South Korea, Japan, and Australia. Qatar led in all four rounds of voting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_and_2 ... #2022_bids

I saw that before. It seems to me that South Korea and Japan did themselves a disservice in the process of securing the first (and so far only) Asian venue in 2002. Because now both nations are previous hosts.

I can't think of any other Asian nations that are better qualified. China maybe for 2026.

Sepp Blatter is widely believed to have voted for the USA, which came second. Michel Platini, the UEFA head currently trying to position himself as Blatter's successor, was one of Qatar's staunchest supporters.

And there lies the only other hope for moving the World Cup: internal FIFA politics - we have to hope that Blatter gets so angry with Platini that he tries to move the 2022 competition to his own original choice just to spite Platini.

FIFA politics. I don't even want to google that.

I will say that the USA has hosted before. More recently than either Brazil or England. Germany is the only nation to host twice, but that's a bit different: it was West Germany (1974) then unified Germany (2006) and that says something.

I guess my idea of hosting in England has been debunked by now ...

[AiliailiA]

I'd say on principle repeat hosts are a bad idea. As a last resort maybe, but even so anywhere but Brazil. Because your team has won more WC's than any other.

How about England hosts it. The Olympic facilities won't be too out of date, and they've never hosted the WC.

Eh, I think I wouldn't object to a UK cup.

Scotland or Wales then. I was wrong: England hosted before, in 1966.

Scotland or Wales. Fuck it. Greece. Sealand. Start from scratch ...

[L Ron Cupboard]

I would like to vote for at least two options: no human rights abuses AND FIFA are corrupt

Give it to Portugal.

[Herskerstad]

Not going to happen. Fifa is pretty much so corrupt they are just selling themselves for the pleasure of it at this point. They could not care less if the supports of the stadium was made from human knuckles from the third world as long as they get to aggrandize themselves at the end of it.

Then again, given the climate both in terms of the social and the environment, it is a disaster waiting to happen.

[The Archregimancy]

How about Brazil hosts it TWICE. After all we had a lot of effort in getting ready for the games and the next time we are selected once more decades in the future we'd have to do the shit all over again.

I'd say on principle repeat hosts are a bad idea. As a last resort maybe, but even so anywhere but Brazil. Because your team has won more WC's than any other.

But they lost the tournament the only previous time it's been held in Brazil, despite an outrageous attempt to rig the format so as to favour the hosts.

No, we're not talking about minimising the host's travelling (though that was certainly done), or manipulated group and knock-out stage draws, but rather the total elimination of a knock-out stage, and its replacement with a final round-robin group on the theory this would favour the home team (Brazil threatened to back out of hosting unless their preferred format was used). Uruguay's famous 2-1 victory in the final match wasn't the actual World Cup Final, but rather the final match in that final round-robin group; Brazil only needed a draw going into the final match to win the group and therefore win the trophy - muchas gracias Alcides Ghiggia.

64 years on, and that home tournament loss still rankles in Brazil - and Ghiggia is the last surviving member of the 1950 Uruguayan team.

Anyway, I don't have an in-principle objection to repeat hosts so long as sufficient time's passed since the last tournament. 64 years, as with Brazil, strikes me as a long enough gap. 16 years - as with Mexico in 1970 & 1986 - strikes me as too short. In mitigation, Mexico were a late replacement for Colombia after the latter withdrew as hosts, only being chosen as the replacement in 1983 precisely because they were in the same general region and could largely reuse the 1970 facilities. Japan and South Korea both wanted it back after a 20 year break - again, too short. The USA's proposed 28 year gap would have been borderline; I would personally prefer an at least 32 year gap, as with Germany between 1974 and 2006 (so England's proposed 52 year gap between 1966 and 2018 would have been fine for me).

[AiliailiA]

I didn't vote in the thread poll.

I want to vote Maybe, but I can't because it's not an option. If forced between Yes and No, I would choose No. But I'm not voting either of the No options because both would require me to endorse some silly reason I would never say as my reason.

Maybe, because Qatar might shape up when put under scrutiny. And Maybe, because there are four more years than in previous hostings, to change the venue. Later this week when the report is released I will form a more firm opinion. But I still won't vote in the poll!

[Gallup]

They are just pretty much slaves. Despicable.

[AiliailiA]

I'd say on principle repeat hosts are a bad idea. As a last resort maybe, but even so anywhere but Brazil. Because your team has won more WC's than any other.

But they lost the tournament the only previous time it's been held in Brazil, despite an outrageous attempt to rig the format so as to favour the hosts.

Brazil did not lose in 1950. They lost the final, which means they came second. Among 13 teams.

Really, no team qualifying for the World Cup "loses" the tournament. There are no playoffs for places below 4th.

Host 1st	Host 2nd	Host 3rd	Host 4th	Host <4th
6	2	3	1 (SK)	7

It's clearly an advantage to be host nation, when so many times the host nation places in the top 4 among 16, 24 or 32 qualifiers.

No, we're not talking about minimising the host's travelling (though that was certainly done), or manipulated group and knock-out stage draws, but rather the total elimination of a knock-out stage, and its replacement with a final round-robin group on the theory this would favour the home team (Brazil threatened to back out of hosting unless their preferred format was used). Uruguay's famous 2-1 victory in the final match wasn't the actual World Cup Final, but rather the final match in that final round-robin group; Brazil only needed a draw going into the final match to win the group and therefore win the trophy - muchas gracias Alcides Ghiggia.

64 years on, and that home tournament loss still rankles in Brazil - and Ghiggia is the last surviving member of the 1950 Uruguayan team.

Anyway, I don't have an in-principle objection to repeat hosts so long as sufficient time's passed since the last tournament. 64 years, as with Brazil, strikes me as a long enough gap. 16 years - as with Mexico in 1970 & 1986 - strikes me as too short. In mitigation, Mexico were a late replacement for Colombia after the latter withdrew as hosts, only being chosen as the replacement in 1983 precisely because they were in the same general region and could largely reuse the 1970 facilities. Japan and South Korea both wanted it back after a 20 year break - again, too short. The USA's proposed 28 year gap would have been borderline; I would personally prefer an at least 32 year gap, as with Germany between 1974 and 2006 (so England's proposed 52 year gap between 1966 and 2018 would have been fine for me).

My principle is much simpler than that. It's to avoid repeats at all unless there is no credible option.

South Africa seemed a risky option at the time it was selected, but it worked out pretty well. FIFA should continue to take risks like that, to keep alive the pretension and perhaps the eventual reality of football being the "world game".

[Benuty]

FIFA being asinine and/or corrupt?

You do not say oh the mere shame of it all .

[The Archregimancy]

But they lost the tournament the only previous time it's been held in Brazil, despite an outrageous attempt to rig the format so as to favour the hosts.

Brazil did not lose in 1950. They lost the final, which means they came second.

Quibbling over semantics brought about by some untidy language on my part.

No, you can't 'lose' an entire tournament per se - even El Salvador in 1982 didn't 'lose the tournament'. I simply meant that Brazil lost the 'final', in a tournament that had no final, via a format specifically chosen to increase the chances the hosts would win - at the insistence of the hosts.

South Africa seemed a risky option at the time it was selected, but it worked out pretty well. FIFA should continue to take risks like that, to keep alive the pretension and perhaps the eventual reality of football being the "world game".

The problem with that reasoning as written - without further qualifiers - is that it's, by and large, the official excuse used to take the tournament to Qatar. And isn't that working out well.

Risks are fine - and I actually fully agree that circulating the World Cup globally is a good thing, and that the South Africa World Cup was a good thing.

But when that's used as an excuse to award the tournament to a patently inappropriate choice like Qatar, then there's a problem. And if circulating the World Cup globally is the primary criterion we're using, then Australia likely should have won the 2022 bid.

[Estormo]

It should be in Dubai, if anything.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Well, they already had the World Cup in South Africa. Tens of thousands were killed by vuvuzelas and millions more were deafened and nobody seemed to mind then.

[Estormo]

Well, they already had the World Cup in South Africa. Tens of thousands were killed by vuvuzelas and millions more were deafened and nobody seemed to mind then.

Oh my God...2010...They were everywhere....the sound.....you don’t know man you weren’t there.