Unless China goes all in its going to be a coronation for Saudi Arabia
2030 World Cup awarded to Spain, Portugal and Morocco
- Thread starter Dans
- Start date
Yay, another vanity project, I guess we have too much money.
Because of what Qatar represents and the footprint of that world cup (beyond the travel)
So it's almost guaranteed Ireland+ UK Euro 2028, this 6 country mess World Cup 2030 and Saudi Arabia + 1 Oceania World Cup 2034.
One side of the draw in Saudi Arabia, One side of the draw in Aus + NZ. Semis and final in China which is probably halfway. Sorted.
Jokes aside, I don't see Saudi wanting to share this. 2034 will be the Saudi show.
That's exactly what it is.
Will the new stadium in Valencia ever happen?
Nah - I don't see what they need to 'wash' anymore than Spain or Portugal
I think they stated that they wanted every continent represented in the 2030 and 2034 World Cups
It's only 3 games, right?
Still, why they're not doing 1 game in Uruguay, if they feel they have to give a nod to the 100 year anniversary, is beyond me.
I hope the 2034 final is played in Antarctica then
PorMarEsp is a brilliant idea. It’s an occasion for allowing amnesies to all people travelling between these countries previously deemed ‘illegal’. In the golden days of The Berbs, The Umayads, The Al-Moravids and the Al-Mohads it was mostly all one country anyways.
The three-game visit to ArgUruPara is just a nice trowback to PorEsp colonialism - it all makes centenarial sense in that old FIFA way.
The three-game visit to ArgUruPara is just a nice trowback to PorEsp colonialism - it all makes centenarial sense in that old FIFA way.
I think that's why they included South America. This way in 2030 you have Africa, Europe and South America included after North America in 2026 leaving Asia and Oceania for the next one. Australia have talked about a bid but they needn't bother. SA already have it and FIFA are bought and paid for.
I dont get why countries still bother trying to host the world cup. It doesn't seem worth the massive expense and FIFA meddling.
What a bunch of morons. There's no other word for it.
LGBT rights, and ongoing human rights in the Western Sahara?
Looks like the tagline fits !
Morocco has bid for for the WC a record 6 times before getting it - well overdue and really nothing to do with sportswashing.
Well, a few hours ago I thought for sure that Valencia would be a stadium but it seems that now it is not among the candidates because of the Nuevo Mestalla issue.
There is going to be a fight between the cities to get the venue and I would bet that Valencia city council is going to get in the middle to make sure it gets built.
LGBT rights, and ongoing human rights in the Western Sahara?
Did you call Japan / Korea, South Africa, Russia sporting washing projects too for LGBT and human rights because they are no angels in those areas either or do we only target Islamic countries?
Back on topic this 2030 setup isn't too bad but ideally it should only be Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay on its own or Spain, Portugal, Morocco on their own. They're all in the same geo location smaller than the size of Brazil. The whole first 3 games in SA is weird and it might stop SA from getting a proper world cup in the near future. This WC is mainly just Spain, Portugal, Morocco. I don't believe they'll be much complaints when it's 2030.
I don't like the idea of Saudi Arabia representing an Asian World Cup. China or India would be better choices if they want a new nation and giving it to Japan-South Korea again would be much better than SA. Of course FIFA is still corrupt so we'll get nothing joke of a World Cup host like last year.
And what was wrong with Qatar world cup in the end? By the end of it many of the fans who travelled there said it's the best or one of the best world cups ever. It was a great spectacle for TV viewers too. The only challenge would be having to rearrange the European football season again as a winter world cup in Dec is likely to be needed. But many people also preferred travelling end of year rather than mid-year.
Saudi has more Infrastructure or can build better Infrastructure than China and India. They have lots of money to invest into a World Cup and are not extremely overpopulated like China and India. Take a closer look on how India and China treats their own people before you want to complain about Saudi's human rights. Not to defend Saudi's human rights record, it's not good but India and China...
Reminds me a bit of the some songs I see on the charts. Instead of just having one band listed on the track, you get artist +artist 2+ artist 3 featuring artist 4 (artist 5 coda).
I think FIFA is leaving some money on the table here though. Why just six countries? Think out of the box. Who says the entirety of the final has to be played in Madrid? Why not play the first half in Madrid and the second half in Casablanca or Barcelona? Think of all the commercials and celebrtiy/influencers you could cram into that half time.
I think FIFA is leaving some money on the table here though. Why just six countries? Think out of the box. Who says the entirety of the final has to be played in Madrid? Why not play the first half in Madrid and the second half in Casablanca or Barcelona? Think of all the commercials and celebrtiy/influencers you could cram into that half time.
They enjoy partaking in constant whataboutism about sportswashing even though it's quite clearly established and recognised beyond the sports world that it's an efficient soft power tool. It fits into their general dynamic of posting anyway so there's no real use to engage with them on this matter.
People will always complain.
Yet they'll swear it's the best world cup ever
I'd rather seeing new culture hosting it than the same of Ingerlund to be fair
Yet they'll swear it's the best world cup ever
I'd rather seeing new culture hosting it than the same of Ingerlund to be fair
The South America opening game part really looks more like a staggeringly idiotic decision even by FIFA standards the more you think about it.
3 teams are going to have to travel to another continent, make the body-clock adjustment and then travel back and struggle with jetlag etc again for their remaining games. As will the 3 home teams, who on the other hand get the advantage of a home game, not to mention the huge boon of automatic qualification. That might not have mattered enormously for Brazil and Argentina, but Paraguay? Thousands of fans will needlessly be forced to travel by air back and forth. And for what? There's only one plausible answer to that: This is what FIFA had to give to avoid CONMEBOL kicking up too much of a fuss over the 2034 tournament going to Asia, for which there is again ZERO good reason, other than the money and sway the Saudis have with that despicable moron Infantino and his odious and corrupt coterie.
Centenary? You can find a different way to do that, if you want to. At the very least, one game would be enough. Actually, it would be better. One game at Montevideo would mark the occasion much more strongly, effectively and memorably than three games in three different locations. It's completely obvious that this is primarily a handout to CONMEBOL. Not that I blame CONMEBOL, in the larger picture they're getting screwed here.
3 teams are going to have to travel to another continent, make the body-clock adjustment and then travel back and struggle with jetlag etc again for their remaining games. As will the 3 home teams, who on the other hand get the advantage of a home game, not to mention the huge boon of automatic qualification. That might not have mattered enormously for Brazil and Argentina, but Paraguay? Thousands of fans will needlessly be forced to travel by air back and forth. And for what? There's only one plausible answer to that: This is what FIFA had to give to avoid CONMEBOL kicking up too much of a fuss over the 2034 tournament going to Asia, for which there is again ZERO good reason, other than the money and sway the Saudis have with that despicable moron Infantino and his odious and corrupt coterie.
Centenary? You can find a different way to do that, if you want to. At the very least, one game would be enough. Actually, it would be better. One game at Montevideo would mark the occasion much more strongly, effectively and memorably than three games in three different locations. It's completely obvious that this is primarily a handout to CONMEBOL. Not that I blame CONMEBOL, in the larger picture they're getting screwed here.
I was just interested in why they picked on Morocco over Spain, Argentina etc - every country in the world has a page on Amnesty listing human rights issues. Obviously some are much worse than others though.
Sportswashing is generally connected to wealthy countries, which Morocco is not.
Last edited:
Here's where you need to consider the difference between consistency of principle and whataboutery. The former is a fine quality and a standard you can reasonably hold people to, the other is a low trick, a strawman whereby you can undermine a point of principle without having to actually argue against it.
In this case, the practical difference between the two comes down to whether you're calling for more protest against J/K, SA, RUS, or if you're arguing against protest against Saudi Arabia because there wasn't enough protest vis-a-vis the others. It looks pretty clear to me where you are in that picture, so I'm calling bullshit on your consistency point. Your actual point is that HR record shouldn't affect these things. If you thought otherwise, you'd see a problem with Saudi Arabia regardless of what happened in previous cases. So why don't you just come out and argue that, instead of this consistency bullshit?
Ye 1 game in Uruguay and featuring Uruguay would have been more than enough to mark the centenary
He didn't mention Saudi Arabia there, that post and the one replied to is about Morocco
This is clearly all set up for Saudi Arabia. The corruption within football is ridiculous. Just hope it’s not going to be another winter World Cup.
He's trying to set it up as a 'gotcha' to say that the Qatar WC, and what Saudi Arabien are doing, is not sports washing. That'd be my guess.
You're wrong. I'm pointing out how arbitrary and ill-defined the term "sportswashing" is, because if there's a country where the accusation of "sportswashing" can be applied given parallel traits, it's Morocco. Case in point:
Since when did the definition of "sportswashing" include being a wealthy nation?
Is there a GDP per capita threshold that needs to be reached? https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/protesting-sports-washing-and-supporting-western-sahara
Oh, right. Well, same point applies.
Well I'm not arguing for less protest against Saudi Arabia. People should feel free to protest/boycott what their conscience dictates, and no consistency is needed actually, you can choose to arbitrarily protest Saudi Arabia and think Morocco is alright. I don't think I've ever argued Saudi Arabia/Qatar don't have horrible HR records. That would be false. So that's "whataboutery" out the window.
I'm just blown away at the near zero mentions of "sportswashing" in relation to Morocco, compared to the numerous times the term got shoved down our throats regarding Qatar and Saudi Arabia. I'd love to see a definition of the term that actually makes sense, or an admission that it's nonsense that arbitrarily gets applied and in actuality has no impact on any real thing in the real world (I'd also love Margot Robbie to [redacted] but we know that's a pipedream)
I mean, in a thread about Morocco being awarded the WC, you literally have more people concerned about 2034 hypothetically being left open for Saudi Arabia! What am I missing?
Portugal, Spain and Morocco makes sense, but then adding South America in for nostalgia is just BS. Have it either in South America, or leave it in Europe/Morocco.
So, the bolded part would appear to me to be your main point here.
Yes.
And I'm open to arguments to the contrary on this one, because I can be wrong.
Okay - fair and square, that.
I'll give arbitrary a shot and maybe try real world impact at a later time, because the intersection of sports and global politics is what drew me to follow this sport more closely.
On Arbitrary:
It's a tricky thing because once you invoke sportswashing, you are already in the realm of propaganda. It is a propaganda term use to counter state propaganda by means of sports. In the realm of propaganda, unlike say debate or academic discourse, you can disadvantage yourself or reduce your impact by limiting the scope and ambit of the "tools" at your disposal, in this case the seemingly ill-defined term. So it becomes one of those "you know it when you see it" things because it is a weapon in a dialectic rather than a precision instrument. You want to preserve and optimize the efficacy of your weapons, so to speak, so defining it in such a way as to blunt its force is not helpful.
It is arbitrary in the sense that is used by mostly western journalists and activists as a linguistic social cudgel to point out human rights abuses and enact change. But some of this may also be a matter of practicality and/or triage, if you will. Sure there may be some instances under some definitions where you could label a Morocco or a Rwanda as sportwashers, but why beat that drum to death? They are relatively small players in the global order, whereas your Saudi Arabias, Qatars (e.g. real estate in London) and Chinas a real players with real purchase in global realpolitik. So, if you are reading the deployment of the term charitably (primarily meaning setting aside any accusations of hypocrisy of said western journalists' own countries), what may come across as "arbitrary" might actually be a concerted, triaged effort by activists and journalists to target the worst, most-resourced abusers with the most global purchase. Succeed in these efforts and the rest of the global dominoes will fall into place in terms of aligning global norms and practices with some baseline notion of human rights.
At the end of the day, if activists or journalists see a highlight or reduction of human rights or other abuses as a result of the selective, focused deployment of the term, it should be a net win for them, no? Even if they have not defined the term with precision or deployed it with equal vigor in every instance to which it applies. Change takes targeted, concerted effort which, in the fog of a propaganda war, may come across as arbitrariness.
I just pulled this out of my arse, so hack away with pleasure.
Not really because there are massive human rights issues in Saudi Arabia but not so much in Morocco