Introduction

“Politics and football don’t mix”, so said Ruud Gullit, the legendary Dutch footballer of the 1980/90s. As exquisite and versatile as Gullit’s football was, his political punditry was less astute. Football, perhaps more than any other sport, has long been attractive to many a dictator, plutocrat or president. In 1934, the far-right dictator, Benito Mussolini, used Italy’s hosting of the FIFA World Cup to overtly promote his fascist message. The Argentinian Junta, soon after coming to power secured the hosting rights to the 1978 FIFA World Cup, which it then used as a platform to help legitimise their rule. In 2018, President Putin used Russia’s hosting of the competition to re-brand Russia as a modern, diverse and rule-abiding nation following its annexation of Crimea four years earlier. Gullit may be correct in suggesting that football does not want to mix with politics, but the truth of the matter is that politics wants to mix with football and increasingly gets in the way of sporting entertainment.

So, we come to Professor Simon Chadwick and his exploration of the 2022 FIFA World Cup’s relationship with geopolitics. Chadwick, a Professor of Sport and Geopolitical Economy at Skema Business School, has over 25 years’ experience working in working in the global sports industry. According to Chadwick, the 2022 FIFA World Cup was under a stronger spotlight than any other before. Concerns from migrant worker safety to questions around whether a small, desert nation without a history or pedigree in football should be hosting FIFA’s showcase tournament dominated the build-up. However, Chadwick’s argument is that the (geo)politicisation of the FIFA World Cup has been decades in the making.

Football 1.0: Utilitarianism

Since 1904 when FIFA was founded, like other sporting bodies, the organisation existed almost exclusively for the purpose of codifying rules, providing oversight and awarding prizes. Indeed,  Since the earliest sport associations were established in the mid and late 19th century, there was a general understanding that they stayed away from profit. Being on the board of such an organisation was not a lucrative business opportunity but a service to the sport you loved. The aim of these organisations was to promote the sport for the good of the ‘grass-roots’.

Football 2.0: Neo-classical economics

As the early stages of the 20th century progressed, and war came and went, the picture started to change. A key driver was the shift towards a more American-style relationship with sport. During the inter- and post-war years, the US ‘soccer’ scene grew rapidly. There was even talk of moving FIFA HQ to New York. FIFA wanted to bring the US into the fold as this would open a new market for football and help bring new funding to the game. This, however, also brought with it a new set of challenges. The US market was different from the European and Latin American. It was informed not by utilitarian ideas of what sport could achieve but by neo-classical economics, and above all, profit. This heralded a new era for football.

Throughout the remainder of the 20th Century, US influence continued to change the way that football operated. While some European Football Associations (FAs) tried to resist, all eventually got on board. For instance, the English FA published The Future of English Football in 1990, in which it outlined how American practices could be followed to revitalise English football with an injection of money. The Premier League, supported by lucrative contracts for television rights, resulted.

Sport 3.0: Geopolitical economy

If the 1990s led to a revolution in the relationship between economics and football, the 2000s witnessed what Chadwick described as a series of ‘giga-changes’ in the relationship between politics and sport, led by the geopolitical ambitions of oil and gas rich states in the Middle East. An early example was the Emir of Qatar’s decision to fund the construction of the ‘Aspire Zone’ as part of its hosting of the 2006 Asian games. The Emir’s vision though was far more long-term. Indeed, the Aspire Zone was built to not just provide a stadium fit for hosting global sporting events, but also to provide an academy for the harvesting of global sporting talent, including the football stars of the future. By inviting young players from around the world to Qatar and giving them citizenship, they could then go on to represent Qatar on the global stage.

The construction of the Aspire Zone was only the start. As Chadwick explained, since then, there have been three ‘giga-changes’ that have dictated the prevailing winds of world sport, namely: globalisation, digitisation and climate concerns. Globalisation has allowed countries like Qatar and Saudi Arabia to massively increase their investments in global sports, including football. Indeed, many of the UK and Europe’s top football clubs and assets are now owned or sponsored by Arab nations or companies. Digitisation has further enabled countries like Qatar to invest in specialist sports broadcasting business to influence the global discourse around sport (here Qatari owned BEin sports played an instrumental role in trying to disrupt Saudi Arabia’s attempt to buy Newcastle United). Regarding climate concerns, although Gulf nations anticipate that oil and gas consumption will continue increasing for some years, the unfolding global energy transition promises to create serious economic headwinds. Both Qatar and Saudi Arabia have turned to sport as one avenue towards economic diversification.

Domestic considerations

However, for Qatar, hosting the FIFA World Cup also addresses important domestic concerns. 90% of Qatar’s population are foreign migrants. This makes it incredibly hard to form a national identity. Sport is one way that Chadwick has identified that the government can get around this. Chadwick argued that loyalty to a sports team is stronger than loyalty to almost anything else. A fan’s team is about geography, identity, family and history. It is around this that the Qatari government has sought to create a national identity out of a hyper-diverse population. The FIFA World Cup is, of course, central to this plan.

The World Cup also has the potential to contribute to Qatar’s national security. Due to the tiny natural population of the Emirate, it is dependent on its soft power and its alliances for its security. Al-Jazeera is the cornerstone of the government’s soft power and an almost unmitigated success. However, Qatar still feels insecure. After the Saudi/UAE-led blockade of the Qatari peninsula of 2017/18 it brought home to the Qataris that they were a very small fish in a very big pond; they needed hard military support. It might not be obvious how a football tournament plays into this. However, due to the large number of Western fans that were due to come to Qatar during the tournament, NATO countries decided to work with the Qataris to supply on-the-ground military assistance. Chadwick suggested that the Qatari government hoped this would set a precedent for NATO supplying their Emirate with hard military support and lead to the forging of ties between its military and the military of NATO countries.

Final thoughts

Chadwick demonstrated his first-hand experience of what the Qataris are trying to achieve with their hosting of the 2022 FIFA World Cup. It seems that most of their objectives were met. Looking back at the tournament now, as someone who loves sports, I see it as a success. It brought one of the world’s greatest sporting events to a region that had never hosted such a tournament before. The security of the fans was maintained throughout. There was pressure from without to enact positive social change in Qatar. Perhaps most importantly, some excellent football was played; and Messi got to lift the one piece of silverware that had always eluded him: the World Cup! When people look back to the tournament now, many of the greatest worries and concerns that we had, seem unimportant. I worry that we have all put on rose-tinted glasses and forgotten about the issues (LGBT and migrant rights) that seemed so important in the run-up to the competition. It shocked me just how quickly, once the starting whistle had been blown, so many socially concerned football fans put down their digital placards, donned their nation’s football jersey and headed down to the pub to watch each game. So, the Qatari government will be seeing their $240B investment as money well spent. Perhaps we were all taken in by the ‘sports washing’, perhaps we didn’t care about those issues quite as much as we like to think we did, or perhaps Ruud Gullit was right after all, in the minds of fans “Politics and football don’t mix”.

George Myers is a International Security post-graduate student. His interests centre on human security and feminist studies; particularly on the role that female security personal can play in reducing gender based and sexual violence in conflict zones. He hopes to work in the field of humanitarian development after concluding his studies at Loughborough University