Posted on

The Debasement of the Football World Cup

Written by; Tao MacLeod


Over the past few years we have seen a debasement of the men’s World Cup by the very people who are in charge of running football. This has been a slow process seen over a long period of time, starting with the overt commercialisation of the sport. It has prompted a move away from a community based game and towards a more business conglomerate style of entertainment, similar to what we can see from the music and film industries.


Recently, The Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA; the international governing body) has made its decisions on who will host the upcoming World Cup tournaments. We already knew that 2026 would be held in North America. This will be the first time the tournament will be hosted by three different countries, with an enlarged format of 48 national teams (something that I have an issue with and will go into later in this essay). However, it has been the latest announcement that has further raised eyebrows around the world. 


The 2030 competition will see games played across six different countries and three different continents. Morocco, Portugal and Spain will be the official hosts. Although spread across South Western Europe and Northern Africa, the three countries aren’t particularly far apart from each other, at least not compared to the potential venues across Canada, the USA and Mexico in 2026, which will be spread over an actual continent. The more unusual choice, in relation to 2030, has been the decision to have what are being called ‘Anniversary Games’ across Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay, in aid of celebrating the centenary of the World Cup, with the inaugural event hosted in 1930 in the latter country. This will be the most dispersed tournament in the 100 year history of the competition, with a real risk of a lack of rest for the players between fixtures and an increase in carbon emissions from the increased travel. 


More controversially, though, is the decision to award the 2036 World Cup to Saudi Arabia. This is yet another dubious selection that wasn’t helped by a narrowing of the selection field. Due to a policy of rotation across the different parts of the globe, FIFA limited applications from the Asian and Oceanic confederations. The Saudis were the only national governing body to put their hand up for 2036. This means that yet another country without a functioning democracy and a terrible human rights record has been awarded a huge international honour. Let’s look at some of the questionable host selections up until this point.


Click on the image to listen to the Half Court Press Podcast.

Previously Poor Choices of Host Nations

  1. 1978 Argentina; originally selected as hosts for this tournament whilst General Juan Perón was President, who had his own issues around democracy, he was replaced, by his wife, Isabel, upon his death in 1974. She was then overthrown in a military coup in March 1976. The new military junta, headed by General Jorge Videla, looked to legitimise their ascent to power through the popularity of the football World Cup. The tournament became one of the early examples of sports washing, as the dictatorship looked to use publicity gained from the its hosting to promote their nationalistic propaganda, as well as deflect from their human rights issues and fascistic policies. FIFA had more than two years to find a new host for the competition, but chose not to. Even back in the 1970s there were public calls for a boycott. The event went ahead with Argentina winning their first world title (and some shouts over undue governmental influence), whilst the dictatorship tried to use the team’s success to boost its own popularity 
  2. 1994 USA; controversially awarded to a country where association football (abbreviated to soccer in North America) was not particularly popular at the time, it has subsequently grown in participation. Since the 1990s the US Women’s National Team has become the dominant force over the past several years, creating a healthier footballing culture in the country (but this has bore little to no relation to similar success in the men’s game). However, when they awarded hosting rights FIFA had to insist on the national federation resurrecting their domestic professional league, after it had disbanded in 1984. This selection was purely a business oriented decision, as the money men (and it would have been primarily, if not solely males in charge of the administration of football at the time) saw an opportunity to make some big bucks in the land of the free market. The USA is known for promoting their franchise teams in leagues designed to increase revenue streams. This tournament has become a demarcation point for the overt commercialisation of football that we see today
  3. 2018 Russia; the decision to select this country was made in 2010. It was heavily criticised due to Russia’s human rights issues, fascistic tendencies towards political opposition and journalism, as well as a distinct lack of rights for members of the LGBTQ+ community. When fans arrived to watch matches and enjoy the spectacle of the World Cup, those who were gay would potentially have felt intimidated by the anti-homosexual laws within the country. After the annexation of Crimea, from the neighbouring Ukraine in 2014, FIFA had a further four years to change their minds on the selection. They declined and therefore further showed the lack of democratic and progressive social values within the organisation
  4. 2022 Qatar; the host nation for the tournament immediately proceeding the Russian event was marred by similar controversies. A serious lack of inclusion for members of the LGBTQ+ community in Qatar saw similarly restrictive laws around the country to those of their predecessors. There were also issues around workers and human rights which saw Amnesty International comment on the poor conditions and forced labour in the building of stadia for our entertainment.

Click on the image to read the Half Court Press Magazine review of the 2022 Qatar World Cup.

Future Poor Choices of Host Nations

  1. 2026 Canada, Mexico & USA; this will be the first time that the World Cup is hosted across three different countries. It will also be the first time that 48 national teams will participate in the same event. The sheer scale of logistics and travel would be mind bending for us mere mortals to wrap our heads around, however a major concern of mine is the carbon footprint that football is racking up. The flights necessary to commute between fixtures will not be kind to the environment, during this climate crisis. Additionally the fatigue from the commuting, as well as the extra playing time, would place on the players seems excessive. The USA is also showing itself to be moving away from liberal ideals. Several states still use the death penalty as part of their justice system. There has also been recent roll backs on women’s health and some poor government policies on the approach to immigration. Also, they have not done well historically on political interference in other countries. Similarly to 1994 the choice of locations in the USA and Canada also implies a monetary decision was behind this host selection, instead of one based upon footballing traditions and/or excellence
  2. 2030 Morocco, Portugal & Spain; with ‘Anniversary Matches’ based in Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay; this will be another tournament that will be wantonly bloated. With the fixtures in Latin America that will be run parallel to games in Europe and North Africa it will be far too spread out. I’m not against duel hosting, the previous championships Euro 2000 Netherlands and Belgium, as well as the 2002 World Cup Japan and South Korea were all successful and the upcoming Euro 2028 England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales, looks like fun (although as a British sports fan I might be biased). They were, or will, all be close together, allowing easy travel for fans and journalists. 2026 and 2030 will be too unconnected. There is perhaps a cost saving exercise to deal with the ever increasing number of teams that are allowed to qualify, with each federation sharing a part of the expense, but that in itself seems avoidable by merely keeping the number of qualifiers to 32. There has also been a suggestion that by allocating matches to South American, African and European football associations (as well as North American federations previously) then FIFA were able to orchestrate the host selection of the 2034 World Cup, via their rotation policy, to one that they had pre-ordained
  3. 2034 Saudi Arabia; the selection of this oil rich country to host the World Cup seems, from the outside, to have been waved through by FIFA. The international governing body say that their hand was forced towards only accepting applications from the federations from within the Asian, or the Oceanic confederations, but this was because the previous two tournaments had been awarded to such an eclectic set of different nations. That the 2030 World Cup is set to be played across six countries and three continents is highly unusual. Although they have a stronger footballing tradition than previous hosts Qatar, the Saudis haven’t exactly set a high bar when it comes to footballing excellence. The newly minted Saudi football league has attracted some big names, but has struggled to capture the imagination of fans. What the Gulf State has in abundance is money. The petroleum and gas found underneath their lands has placed them on the world stage as an energy superpower. This dosh has been invested wisely through acts of sports washing. It is an absolute monarchy, without any sign of moving towards democracy. There are a distinct lack of rights for women and LGBTQ+ peoples. This will be another tournament host that still carries out the death penalty as part of its justice system, with beheadings metered out to those deemed deserving. This fits neatly into a pattern of decision making from FIFA around their selection of partnerships and tournament hosts

Click on the image to listen to the Half Court Press Podcast.

Cultural Bias

Some of the broader criticism that I have heard around the recent host selections is possibly due to a bias, or prejudice against cultures and ethnic groups outside of Europe, and/or Latin America. These locations have been the traditional hosts of World Cups and major football tournaments and helped to further develop a strong footballing culture, within the respective regions. However, I like the diversity that a roving festival of sport can bring. The 2002 World Cup in Japan and South Korea, as well as the 2010 Word Cup in South Africa appeared to have benefits that outweighed the criticisms of the tournament being hosted in lower ranked footballing nations. Fans were engaged, federations felt involved and football was developed away from being an old boys club. Nevertheless, the hosts listed above haven’t been chosen for these reasons. 


Financial Investments and Sports Washing

Many Arab states have been investing heavily in to the sport of football, as have many businesses from across the USA. Whilst being initially set up, those administering the English Premier League were heavily inspired by the franchise leagues seen across the pond in North America. This cultural change allowed for greater investment and commercialisation into the game from many conglomerate businesses, from out with the local communities. In terms of investment from state owned companies from the Middle East this appears to have brought them political sway across national and international federations. This is something that American organisations have been doing for decades, but is something that the Arab monarchies have been doing more recently within sport.


This isn’t just in football, many sports tournaments at the senior and junior level have been hosted across Arabia and the Persian Gulf. The purpose of this is partially to do with what social commentators call sports washing – the practice of using sports to improve the nation state’s reputation and standing within the international community and/or distract from unethical practices inside it’s borders. We have seen this before with the 1978 World Cup hosted by a military dictatorship in Argentina, as well as Olympic Games held in China and Russia. The more recent trend of sports washing, however, has allowed these countries to have bought their way into the sport, thus licence to carry on with their immoral domestic political policies without too much diplomatic interference. If our cultural institutions are being bankrolled by a Saudi prince, or an overtly greedy corporation, then people in authority or positions of trust will find it difficult to speak out against corruption.


Spurs fans at the old White Hart Lane stadium. Photo Copyright; Tao MacLeod. Click on the image to listen to the Half Court Press Podcast.

Sponsorship and Ever Increasing Tournament Sizes

We have seen an ever increasing number of teams allowed to qualify for tournaments in recent years. This has happened in both the World Cup and the European Championships. In 1970 we saw 16 national teams from five confederations qualify for the World Cup, with eight sides going to Euro 1980. This allowed for groups of four to play a round robin first round, before advancing to further stages of the competition. 


This number has increased dramatically since then. The World Cup in 1982 was the first tournament to increase to 24 teams, with Euro 1996 being the first of these continental championships to host 16 sides. France 1998 was the first World Cup to see 32 squads arrive at the tournament, with Euro 2016 being the initial tournament to host 24 (the same size as the World Cups held between 1982 and 1994). 


The 2026 World Cup will be the first of these tournaments to host 48 national teams from six confederations. This seems to me to be excessive. The only reason I can fathom why it has increased so much has to do with sponsorship. The more games that are played the greater the number of opportunities to sell a variety of products to a hooked audience. Fast food outlets, alcohol brewers, sports kit manufacturers, carbon emitting airlines, banks and technology companies are all listed as partners of FIFA. Has the world governing body organised a greater number of games in order to sell us airline tickets, beer, hamburgers, fizzy pop drinks and trainers in greater numbers? The World Cup has become less a celebratory festival of football and has, in practice, established itself as one of the greatest global tools for the marketing of massive, faceless businesses. 


The Half Court Press editor, Tao MacLeod, has written a book, entitled A Little Book About Hockey. You can buy it now from Amazon, by clicking on the image…

Affects on the Spectacle of Tournaments

The increase in participation has seen a weakening of the tournaments themselves. With each increase of those to have qualified we have seen a drop in the standards of football. Teams that would otherwise not have made the grade have recently been pitted against each other, producing some absolute dross on the football pitch. It has also thrown up some unnecessary pathways through a tournament, where a side that has performed poorly in the first round can still advance due to the need to have a certain amount of squads in the second round. 


Multiples of eight that can then be easily divided back down to eight again, have proven to be a good method of setting up a tournament structure. Personally, I think that 16 is a good number for a continental competition, with 32 for the World Cup, with groups of four, each playing one another in the first round, before advancing to the next round. This then gets reduced by half for each further round until the final. Even though the other formats are still multiples of eight, the number of teams are not easily halved, therefore creating a reward system for mediocrity as described above. This has been seen most recently in Euro 2024, with 24 squads having made it to the finals, where teams went through to the second round, without having performed particularly well. 


We will see this again in the upcoming World Cup when the number of teams will be increased to 48. This allows the traditionally bigger teams, with richer federations and leagues, to start slowly and play conservatively (potentially advancing with only three draws in their group) and grow into the tournament, thus negating the smaller sides who work hard to get things right from the beginning and then start ambitiously. We therefore make these competitions less competitive and promote boring football.


Click on the image to read the Half Court Press Magazine’s thoughts on the European Super League.

Environmental Impacts

The greater number of teams travelling over greater distances increases the carbon footprint of football. These teams are not going to car pool in electric vehicles across the North American continent in 2026. They will be hoping about in private jets to get from their training base to the various stadia that the games are held in. Similarly the fans and journalists will be taking planes to increase the efficiency of their travel arrangements. Once there, some might be able to take a train, or a bus, but by spreading the matches across vast distances these tournaments will not be helping the climate emergency. The fashion of building brand new stadiums also damages the sport’s credibility when it comes to environmental sustainability. When we need to be flying less and renovating more football has become the antithesis of the very valid concerns expressed through environmentalism, due to its inherent financial greed. 


Alternatives

I don’t see much benefit in the national federations boycotting of the World Cup. The main people who would be punished would be the players, coaches, teams and fans. Directly boycotting the sponsors could have a greater effect on the actions and decisions of the governing bodies. Campaigning locally, before building up to a more regional and then global scale could also be of use, but time consuming. If fan groups harangue their clubs, who in turn feedback to the relevant Football Associations, then their points of view might eventually filter through to the international confederations. However, this would take a huge amount of effort from a large amount of people, over a long period of time. 


Fans who lend their support to community based teams such as AFC Wimbledon and FC United of Manchester can be helpful in terms of moving away from the commercial entertainment based model of football ownership and fandom within football, as does the German system of majority fan based ownership of their clubs. Many of the lower league sides, in Britain and elsewhere, are still ingrained in their local communities. They would value the additional support of those who have, perhaps, recently moved to the area, or have become disillusioned with the larger team down the road. 


I would also suggest that in order to have a healthier sports culture in Britain then football fans should develop interests in more than one activity. The plurality of fandom in other countries helps to mitigate the hegemony of one sport over the rest. Football is so ingrained into British sporting way of life that the club owners feel that they can do whatever they want and have done so over several decades now. The move towards the running of previously community clubs as PLC’s allowed for financially glutinous creation fo the English Premier League. Those involved at the top have been taking money from those in need at the bottom since its incarnation. By having greater diversity of interests we can perhaps slowly ebb the teams and institutions back towards a more diverse set of stakeholders. I’m suggesting that we target the supply and demand nature of the business mindset that has become so ingrained in sport.


As an alternative to larger tournaments, we could have more competitions with fewer teams in it. The EuroHockey Championships are graded. The sport has four men’s divisions. The top three have eight teams each, where the finalists of the lower divisions are promoted to the top tier. The winners of the top grade become the champions of Europe (and also qualify for the upcoming larger tournament, the Olympics, or the World Cup). Something along those lines could work in football, perhaps with 16, or 32 sides in each division. This tiered system could allow for local businesses to sponsor the teams that are relevant to them, thus allowing greater investment into the communities on a more localised scale, thus helping to make football teams and their players approachable and engage-able again. 


Click on the image to listen to the Half Court Press Podcast.

Click on the image to listen to the Half Court Press Podcast.

One Reply to “The Debasement of the Football World Cup”

Comments are closed.