No answers here, just observations.
I suspect most people's objections to the WC being in Qatar fall into one of two categories (or both).
1. Football reasons - Qatar is not a footballing nation, has no football pedigree and therefore what gives it the right to host what should be football's greatest tournament? A famous song writer once wrote "Money doesn't talk, it swears," and if you want an example of money swearing and getting it's own way, then a Qatari World Cup sticks out like a sore thumb. Although this isn't the first time this competition has been mired in financial controversy, is it? (Step forward and take a bow, Messers Blatter and Platini). Now it could be argued that major footballing nations should have objected to Qatar hosting this tournament long ago. However, in pure footballing terms only (and leaving politics aside for one moment) what real argument could they have put forward apart from what I said at the start of this paragraph?
2. Political reasons. If major European countries really objected to the WC being in Qatar, they should have raised objections 10 years ago when the country was awarded the tournament. If say, England, Germany, Spain, France and Italy (although they didn't qualify) had all said 10 years ago, we aren't prepared to send teams there, what would have happened? Firstly, the competition would have gone ahead anyway and would have been poorer for those nations not participating. Secondly, it would have split the football world asunder and would probably have been the end of the WC as we know it, with nations from different continents finding
"reasons" not to participate in tournaments not held on their own continent.
To further complicate the matter, if European teams should not be competing in Qatar, then should they have supported the WC when it was in the following countries; Russia - even without the last 10 months, they hardly have an impeccable human rights record; Argentina- when it was ruled by a military dictator; South Africa -with its checkered history, or maybe all is forgiven; Brazil or Mexico -where you have wonderful stadia next door to people living and dying in abject poverty; and should either England or Argentina have participated in the 1982 WC in the immediate aftermath of the Falklands war? Where do you draw the political line?
If we are judging future hosts of the WC in political terms, how many countries outside of Europe would we deem acceptable? USA, Canada, and Australia? None of them have a particularly strong football history, do they? This is a World event, not just a European one, and therefore will sometimes be held in places we find politically unpalatable. In the current tournament it seems that it is only the European nations who are wanting to make token protests against the Qatari regime. I haven't heard of any South American or African teams raising the same objections. Iran protested, but that was about the political situation in their own country. Now, of course, we would argue that we are enlightened Europeans and we have it right when it comes to human rights and freedoms. People from other continents may argue that Europe is just out of kilter with much of the rest of the world. Whether or not some of the token protests that are being made actually make any difference, I can see how the European teams are giving the Arab world an easy narrative here, one that goes something like; "Here come those Westerners again on another crusade..."
In an event like this one, you are going to find nations of different cultures, belief systems and lifestyles whether we like it or not. And is it right for us to try to impose our way of living (if that is what we are trying to do) on another country, any more than it is right for people from another country to come to the UK and try to impose their lifestyles on us?
Answers? As the same songwriter said - Blowin' in the wind
