Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Follow PostSports on Twitter  |  Facebook  |  E-mail alerts: Redskins and Sports  |  RSS
Posted at 7:00 AM ET, 12/13/2010

The World Cup will not bring soccer to the Middle East

By Jeff Maurer

Pretend for a minute that you're a non-corrupt member of the FIFA Executive Committee. I know, I know - a ridiculous hypothetical, but this is just a thought exercise. Imagine it's last Thursday. You're back in your suite at the five-star Baur au Lac hotel in Zurich, having just voted to give the World Cup to Qatar in 2022. You feel a tremendous sense of self-satisfaction. There is a chocolate truffle daintily laid on your pillow. You eat it. It is smooth and rich - delectably Swiss. You decide to dip into the mini-bar - better get some drinking in now, since alcohol might be hard to come by in Qatar! But after all, you deserve it - you brought the World Cup to the Middle East for the first time!

Just one thing: you didn't. I've heard the phrase "brining the World Cup to new lands" constantly over the past week - in fact, it's the only arguably-legitimate reason for giving Qatar the World Cup that I've heard offered. And on the face of it, it's a noble idea: soccer is the world's game, and people all over the world should be able to experience it in its finest form. It's only when you start to think about what "bringing the game to the Middle East" actually means that you realize a World Cup in Qatar won't actually do much of anything for anyone in the Middle East.

Start by thinking about who will attend the 2022 World Cup. There are about one million people in Qatar*. There are about 796 million people in the Middle East, so Qataris are .13 percent of the population. So, 99.87 percent of Middle Easterners will need a visa if they want to attend, and traveling in the Middle East isn't like traveling in the EU. In South Africa, there were enough matches being played in people's back yards that some middle and lower-middle class people could actually scrape up enough money to attend. Qatar won't be like that.

Wealthy Middle Easterners will travel to Qatar, but then again, wealthy Middle Easterners can attend any World Cup they want. In fact, the wealthy in the Middle East are rich enough to pay A-list actors and lingerie models to re-enact World Cup matches if they so choose. The rest of the Middle East is probably priced out of a World Cup - there's not much of a middle class. There aren't a whole lot of not-fabulously-wealthy people in the Middle East who have enough money to buy tickets, arrange travel (most people will need a plane ticket), and pay out-of-this-world prices at Qatar's top-drawer, business-oriented hotels and restaurants - 2022 will not be the people's World Cup.

Some say it's not about the attendance, it's about the psychological benefit that Middle Easterners will receive from proving they can stage a World Cup. How so? What will 2022 prove? That oil wealth can finance huge construction projects? Didn't we already know that? How is the 2022 World Cup emblematic of any sort of achievement or progress in the Middle East, as opposed to just something Qatar is able to do because oil and gas have made them fabulously wealthy? I actually bought into the psychological benefit argument in South Africa; they were once a country barred from international sports, now a country with a representative, democratic government and a model for the region. They came a long way...they earned it. The World Cup showed that Africa was moving forward, and that good things come with peace, democracy, and human rights. What has Qatar's government done? They're still a monarchy. There's no free press. Homosexuality is illegal. And, I'm sorry, "more tolerant of women than their neighbors" doesn't impress me much. All last week's vote proved was that countries awash in petrodollars don't need to reform in order to get what they want...another thing that we already knew.

What about the economics? I see no possible way that Qatar doesn't throw away a boatload - I'm sorry, a traditional dhow fishing boatload - of cash on this World Cup. The U.S. bid estimated that we would make $5 billion, and that's a rose-colored-glasses projection from the U.S. bid, with our giant stadiums and virtually nonexistent infrastructure costs. The proposed cost of the Qatar bid is...(camera zooms in, puts pinky to mouth)...54 BILLION DOLLARS! And that's the initial estimate for construction costs - has anyone ever heard of a construction project that comes in at anything even remotely resembling the initial estimate? And it's not like these are infrastructure investments that the country needs anyway; after the Cup, several stadiums will actually be disassembled and taken to "needy countries" (a strange idea. "Hey, Congo, we know you've had a rough time with that civil war. Here's a fifty-thousand seater with a jumbotron and luxury boxes."). The World Cup will divert tens of billions of dollars away from projects that could have done a lot more to benefit people in the Middle East.

Was it about connecting with the Muslim world? If that was the case, then you can argue that the bid should have gone to the country with the most Muslims: the United States. The U.S. has at least 2.35 million Muslims. And there may actually be more: Muslim groups estimate the number at about seven million, and Fox News leaves the impression that the real number might be something like 200-300 million, all of them lurking around a corner somewhere.

What about introducing soccer to a new part of the world? Um, if that's the concern, then I've got good news for FIFA: the Middle East is aware of soccer. That'd be kind of like introducing trans fats to the U.S.; not only are we aware of them, there are actually few things that we love more. I briefly lived in Morocco (not a Middle Eastern country, but a Muslim one), and soccer is right up there with drinking tea and searching for shade in terms of national past-times. There aren't Neilsen ratings in my Morocco, but I would estimate the audience for Champions League matches at: every single living male. So, sure, FIFA, you're going to introduce soccer to the Middle East. Why not introduce sand to the Middle East?

So, basically, the "Middle Eastern World Cup" is a multi-billion dollar sinkhole that will - like every previous World Cup - be watched on TV by all but a very few extremely wealthy Middle Easterners, and which says nothing whatsoever about the present or future of the region. It may instill some Middle Easterners with a sense of pride, but only if their pride is tied to commodity prices instead of actual progress. The real shame is that one day, a Middle Eastern country will actually make a legitimate bid for the World Cup, but the region will have used its turn on the inaccessible, petro-funded Qatar 2022 World Cup.

* Population estimates vary widely due to the large number of immigrant laborers. Fun fact: a large percentage of Qatari immigrant laborers are from Pakistan, a.k.a. one of the very few countries in the world that doesn't care about soccer.

By Jeff Maurer  | December 13, 2010; 7:00 AM ET
Categories:  Jeff Maurer, Soccer  | Tags:  Jeff Maurer, U.S. National soccer team, United  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Political Football: Dysfunction in D.C., Snyderville
Next: MVP: Must Vacate the Premises, Graham Gano



Now FIFA is saying that Qatar can host games in their neighbor's countries, if they want.

Look, this was a stupid decision in so many ways. The fun will now be watching FIFA trip over themselves to try and justify it.

Posted by: Dougmacintyre | December 13, 2010 7:48 AM | Report abuse

Just about everything after the word "corrupt" is wrong. Other than Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, alcohol is readily available in the Gulf States. Also, like the EU, residents of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries can travel freely between countries without a visa. Interesting you should mention visa issues: How many additional ICE agents (not to mention TSA employees) would it take to get everyone admitted to the US if we had won the 2022 games?

Finally, it was always assumed the matches would be distributed around the region - it's a lot closer from Qatar to Oman than it is from Dallas to Los Angeles.

Posted by: galen1 | December 13, 2010 9:21 AM | Report abuse


I'm curious where you obtained your figures relating to the country with the most Muslims, as stated here:

"If that was the case, then you can argue that the bid should have gone to the country with the most Muslims: the United States. The U.S. has at least 2.35 million Muslims."

Perhaps I misread or misunderstood your point, but I'm pretty sure that distinction belongs to Indonesia, which has a population of 238 million, the majority of which are Muslim.

Posted by: kathryn_rzeszut | December 13, 2010 9:29 AM | Report abuse

There are lots of football fans in the Muslim World. The problem is that fans in most of those countries tend to be more fans of European mega-clubs than fans of their own respective domestic leagues.

So one legitimate reason for staging a World Cup in a Muslim country would be to help raise the quality of their own domestic league.

In this respect, Morocco, Egypt, Indonesia or Iran plainly have more potential in terms of their domestic leagues than tiny Qatar, which simply cannot sustain newly built stadiums of a WC-scale.

And if you care to give the WC to a country with a very established domestic league, Turkey would be the natural fit. Also has the virtue of being economically dynamic and politically reasonably advanced (not that FIFA cares about political freedoms, but hey...).

Why Qatar of all places should get the Cup, remains a mystery.

It'll be simply prohibitively expensive for fans to visit this Disney-Emirate. And, if staged in summer, then it'll also be nightmare in terms of temperatures. I don't particularly trust promises of climatised stadia and training grounds. But more to the point, what about fans suffocating from the extreme heat?

Now, AFTER Qatar has won, the idea of shifting the event into winter has cropped up. But that'd TOTALLY disrupt our domestic football leagues and prove very problematic to team preparation and all.

Summer or Winter, Qatar is ill-suited to hosting the World Cup.

Qatar simply promises to be a soulless Disney-esque World Cup. It's an anathema to the fans and you simply won't have anything like the the atmosphere inside and outside of stadia befitting the World Cup.

As a German, I'd have liked to have the US host it again (no particular issue with Russia '18, though I do hope the Russian league and gov will clamp down more on racism). The US would guarantee big crowds at the games, a great atmosphere and actually help grow the sport further in the hosting country.

MLS is a good product and deserves an extra boost.

Anyway, I think the US should now try to join CONMEBOL (or have CONCACAF merge with it). The US national team really needs a serious continental competition comparable to the European Cup. One continental competition for the whole Americas would give the US team the competition and challenge CONCACAF alone cannot provide.

As for FIFA, time to throw the bums out! If need be, the non-corrupt FAs should unite and threaten secession.

Posted by: charlesf1 | December 13, 2010 9:47 AM | Report abuse


I believe he was just including countries that were bidding for the 2022 World Cup, which included the US, Qatar, Australia, Korea, and Japan.

Posted by: fnwicked | December 13, 2010 12:17 PM | Report abuse

@kathryn_rzeszut: fnwicked is correct - I was referring only to countries that bid for 2022.

- I didn't say alcohol would be forbidden; I said it "might be hard to come by", which is accurate. From what I've heard and read, including what I've hard said by the Qatari bid committee, alcohol is restricted in Qatar. I mean, alcohol's not illegal in Salt Lake either, but it takes some extra leg work to find it.

- You make a good point about the GCC; I wasn't aware of that. Still, that's only 6 out of 14 Middle Eastern countries (and that 14 excludes Turkey, North Africa, and subcontinental and East Asian Muslim countries). The fact remains that travel costs will cause large numbers of middle and lower-middle class Middle Easterners to be priced out of the World Cup.

- How many ICE and TSA agents would need to be added for a US World Cup? Not many. The 1994 World Cup drew 3.56 million fans, many of whom were American (obviously). So, we could probably count on a couple million foreign visitors. 50 million people visit the United States in a "normal" year, so you're talking about a bump of maybe 4 of 5 percent.

Posted by: JeffMaurer | December 14, 2010 11:51 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.

characters remaining

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company