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 $220

billion in tournament infrastructure and stadiums over 12 years.

The 14 corporate sponsors of Fdration 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 homosexual 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-homosexual, but anti-fun."

As FIFA rakes in billions in revenue from sponsors and broadcasters at the world's most-watched sports event, 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

QUESTION 1 (20 Marks)

According to the article, the FIFA brands reputation suffered in Qatar. With the aid of the article, discuss why the

macroenvironmental analysis must be part of a due diligence study done before awarding the rights to host future FIFA

world cup events.

QUESTION 2 (20 Marks)

Events and experiences such as the FIFA world cup competitions attract sponsors who put in substantial amounts of

money.

Assess the wisdom of being a headline sponsor at the FIFA world cup event.