Africa: Beer and Boycotts – Why FIFA’s Corporate Sponsors Should Back Rights Reforms After World Cup

QUESTION

Africa: Beer and Boycotts – Why FIFA’s Corporate Sponsors Should Back Rights Reforms After World Cup. The 2022 World Cup final in Qatar was one for the history books, with Lionel Messi lifting the gold tournament trophy for Argentina and fans worldwide cheering the achievements of their favourite national teams. But on the human rights front, the FIFA World Cup in Qatar was memorable for all the wrong reasons: The lack of protections for women, journalists and LGBTQ people, and the deaths of thousands of migrant workers delivering $220billion in tournament infrastructure and stadiums over 12 years. The 14 corporate sponsors of Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), soccer’s global governing body, together pay billions of dollars to reach consumers over a multi-year cycle. Companies expect an untarnished halo; not threats to their brand image from the sport known as the “beautiful game.” Yet throughout Qatar’s tournament, FIFA’s corporate partners were imperilled by association with abuses against migrant workers and human rights violations including against LGBTQ rights. At his closing press conference, FIFA president Gianni Infantino claimed it was “the best World Cup ever.” But a last-minute ban on beer at stadiums, calls for boycotts, LGBTQ rights armband censorship, player protests, and an unprecedented two migrant worker deaths at the tournament itself put a grim blanket on much of the traditional World Cup excitement.
Alongside soccer, the spotlight was on wage theft, uncompensated deaths of low-paid migrant workers, and Qatar’s penal code, which criminalizes extramarital sex and same-sex relations. As the World Cup opened, a Qatari official described homosexuality as “damage in the mind” and being gay as “haram,” Arabic for “forbidden.” Then FIFA banned “One Love”
LGBTQ solidarity armbands for players. The House of Commons adopted a motion condemning FIFA’s threatened punishment for players.
Late-night television host Stephen Colbert called Qatar’s World Cup “Not just anti-gay, but anti-fun.”
As FIFA rakes in billions in revenue from sponsors and broadcasters at the world’s most-watched

, many migrant worker families struggle to feed their children or pay off crushing loans their loved ones took out to pay illegal World Cup job recruitment fees.
FIFA had to move the tournament from summer to winter because of the extreme heat in Qatar. But Qatari authorities failed to protect the migrant workers who were building the tournament infrastructure from the same deadly working conditions.
Even when Qatar finally made crucial reforms for migrant workers protections, they were either not implemented well or came too late.
In response, sportswear giant Hummel hid its corporate logo and produced an all-black “colour of mourning” uniform for Denmark’s World Cup team. The company wrote on Instagram: “We don’t wish to be visible during a tournament that has cost thousands their lives.” German soccer fans called on their team to boycott, and skip “a lavish football festival on the graves of thousands of migrant workers.” In France, whose national team won the 2018 World Cup, Le Quotidien newspaper announced it would boycott coverage of the tournament. The Australia men’s national football team released a video protesting abuse in Qatar: “These migrant workers who suffered are not just numbers.”
Ahead of the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics in February, Olympic sponsors including Coca-Cola and Visa were put on the U.S. congressional hot seat to answer “how they can leverage their influence to insist on concrete human rights improvements” in China and “how they will manage the material and reputational risks of being associated with an Olympic
Games.” As FIFA considers green-lighting future World Cup bids from would-be hosts Saudi Arabia and China, FIFA’s sponsors can expect the same treatment.
FIFA’s corporate partners did not use their financial leverage in 2010 to insist on human rights due diligence when FIFA awarded the tournament to Qatar. As brand risks grew ahead of the Qatar World Cup, sponsors including AB InBev/Budweiser, Adidas, Coca-Cola, Visa and McDonald’s backed the call on FIFA to set up a remedy fund to compensate migrant workers and their families for wage abuses, injuries, and deaths. Under pressure from Qatar, that fund to compensate workers for harms and deaths was not established.
In addition to insisting on a remedy fund for worker injuries and harms, FIFA sponsors should now use their exposure, embarrassment, and broken contracts from the Qatar event to demand that FIFA finally make good on its commitment that host governments must protect workers, LGBTQ rights, women and press freedom. FIFA’s sponsors expected only positive images for their brands by associating with joy, fair competition, and human achievement on the World Cup playing fields.
Instead, the legacy of this World Cup for them is already inscribed: when it comes to brand safety in sport, human rights are non-negotiable.

Source: Worden, M., Human Rights Watch (Washington, DC). 26 December 2022. Online. Available from:
https://allafrica.com/stories/202212260013.html

ANSWER

Africa: Beer and Boycotts – Why FIFA’s Corporate Sponsors Should Back Rights Reforms After World Cup

Introduction

The 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar was celebrated for its exhilarating matches and Lionel Messi’s triumph with the Argentina national team. However, it also garnered attention for the glaring human rights violations and lack of protections for marginalized groups. The tournament witnessed the deaths of thousands of migrant workers involved in building infrastructure and stadiums, as well as the suppression of women, journalists, and LGBTQ individuals. FIFA’s corporate sponsors, who invest billions of dollars in reaching consumers, faced the challenge of associating their brands with such abuses. This essay explores why these sponsors should prioritize rights reforms and support FIFA in addressing these issues.

The Human Rights Concerns

The Qatar World Cup brought to light numerous human rights concerns. Migrant workers, who played a pivotal role in delivering the tournament’s infrastructure, endured wage theft, uncompensated deaths, and hazardous working conditions. Moreover, Qatar’s penal code criminalizes extramarital sex and same-sex relations, exposing the LGBTQ community to discrimination and persecution. FIFA’s decision to ban LGBTQ solidarity armbands for players further aggravated the situation, leading to widespread condemnation and player protests. The House of Commons even passed a motion denouncing FIFA’s threatened punishment for players.

Corporate Sponsorship Risks

FIFA’s corporate partners, comprising 14 influential brands, invest substantial sums to align themselves with the “beautiful game” and reach a global audience. However, the association with the Qatar World Cup subjected these sponsors to risks that tarnished their brand images. The bans on beer at stadiums, boycott calls, armband censorship, and the deaths of migrant workers all cast a grim shadow on the traditional excitement associated with the World Cup. Late-night television host Stephen Colbert aptly described it as “anti-gay and anti-fun.”

The Responsibility of Corporate Sponsors

Given the magnitude of revenue generated by FIFA through sponsorships and broadcast rights, it is imperative for corporate sponsors to take a stand on human rights issues. Many families of migrant workers struggle to meet their basic needs or repay exorbitant loans acquired for illegal World Cup job recruitment fees. Sponsors must leverage their financial influence to ensure FIFA establishes a remedy fund that compensates workers and their families for wage abuses, injuries, and deaths. Additionally, sponsors should demand FIFA’s commitment to protect workers, LGBTQ rights, women, and press freedom in host countries.

Lessons from Olympic Sponsors

The upcoming Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics put Olympic sponsors like Coca-Cola and Visa under scrutiny from the U.S. Congress regarding their approach to human rights in China. Similar expectations can be anticipated for FIFA’s sponsors as FIFA contemplates future World Cup bids from countries like Saudi Arabia and China. It is crucial for sponsors to recognize that their involvement goes beyond financial gain and that they have the power to influence meaningful change.

Conclusion

FIFA’s corporate sponsors cannot overlook the human rights abuses associated with the Qatar World Cup. While they expect positive brand associations with joy, fair competition, and human achievement, the reality has been far from ideal. Sponsors must use their exposure, embarrassment, and broken contracts as leverage to demand that FIFA fulfills its commitment to protecting workers, LGBTQ rights, women, and press freedom. By prioritizing human rights reforms, FIFA’s sponsors can help create a safer and more inclusive environment for future World Cup tournaments, where the focus remains on the beautiful game rather than tarnished legacies.