World Cup 2022 - discussion of the host country and related issues

You need a visa to enter Qatar, but for the World Cup they have some sort of waiver scheme in place if you hold a World Cup ticket (same as Russia in 2018), so if the fans arrived without valid tickets, and also had no visa they wouldn’t be let in!

From what I can see the debate is purely speculation. Were the latest tickets valid? The France Morocco game seemed packed to me.

The impression I get, and again it is only speculation on my part. But the vibe of that Euro News story above seems very scant on facts but high on implication.

It is the journalistic equivalent of putting the word ‘troubled’ before an individuals name. Very subtle. It is an old tried and tested trick. Sometimes by not saying something outright is more powerful journalistically. Then the reader/viewer has been framed in a mindset and ‘reads between the lines’.

In psychology it is called the ‘framing effect’

In your case your framing of the situation allows you think ‘aha this shows Qatar is unfriendly’. Which itself is confirmation bias.But you have the broader issues in context. Were the tickets valid etc?

We saw what happened England in Wembley in the Euros final massive security breach a shambles- no control on tickets. A danger to health and safety.

You can take your "framing effect" ..... Not everything has to be a point scoring exercise.

From what @Captain_Crash said, you needed a ticket for the game to get into the country. Now it makes sense, as obviously they didn't have match tickets and the "Fan Zones" were for locals only, which I admit I didn't know. I don't mind admitting when I don't have all the facts, as I didn't here, so I had the wrong idea, as I didn't know you needed a visa ordinarily to get into the country.

The big plus here is that I now know that I will not need to purchase a ticket AND visa, as I won't be visiting this place any time soon.

No wonder the atmospheres have been so rubbish if fans can only get into the country with a confirmed ticket. Honestly, day by day the idea of them hosting a World Cup gets more ridiculous.

I can see it sure, it is insincere, or naive. A lot is based on hysteria, and lack of knowledge/research. Plus not looking at views and the reality from all sides. Not looking at the bigger picture. It’s boards.ie after-all.

And a lot of posters seem to think you have to ‘pick a side’. In any debate. But I look at all the viewpoints. And evaluate the sources.

Sometimes they may have an agenda and it could be hyperbole. But if I find the primary source from the secondary source. It helps expand my knowledge on the issue in question.

If people want real change that is done at governmental and political levels. Talking to your political reps. The USA and the UK back Qatar on the governmental/ economic/geopolitical level. Qatar would not exist otherwise.

Why is there no lobbying of those governments and financial institutions etc? That is how cultural change happens. A gradual process. Actually doing something.

Instead we get meaningless symbolism to appear like ‘you care’ which is pointless. To me that is daft.

For instance it occurred to me that England v Senegal. England’ ‘took the knee’ co-opted from America BLM. But it appeared not ONE of the Senegal lads ‘took the knee’. How daft and pointless it looked. And Senegal a team full of black players and former French colony!

England taking knee v Senegal WC 20222 - Senegal players standing waiting

Similar thing happened at England v USA. England ‘took the knee’ and the country where it was invented (by political movement) didn’t take the knee. Again, how daft the optics are. Pointless silliness.

England players taking knee v USA WC 2022 - USA wait standing

As for the self righteousness. I would argue that it fits perfectly in this thread. As the whole debate itself is laced with self righteousness. The only difference is I look at all sides and the much broader picture.

But how does the atmosphere or lack of it affect you sitting at home watching?

Empty stadiums like during COVID do obviously affect the viewing experience but the level of attendance in Qatar hardly changed anything for the viewer watching at home.

Even though Qatar was a poor choice of venue for many reasons for someone like myself watching from home it made no difference really.

How is it a British issues? The knelling was a bandwagon taken from a radical American political group. The banks even got in on it a BLM hysteria - with the banners etc. Yet this group wanted to bring down capitalism! There is no coherence to the ‘protests’ at this stage at all.

We are supposed to attach an ever more vague meaning to England kneeling. It has no real meaning or purpose. John Barnes, Wilf Zaha and Les Ferdinand rightly called it out for what it is, explaining why from a number of standpoints.

Then there is the one love armband farce. The simple threat of yellows and the symbolic protest died. It could have had some meaning then. As Ian Wright correctly said real protest has consequence and meaning. Keane correctly said if they believe in it that was the very time to do it. What a statement it would make. Instead we got different versions of symbolism which somehow were supposed to fill the void. Daft stuff.

As regards consistency I have been very consistent. I questioned why it was only the one journalist from Denmark with a record of making his name in conflict areas- was the only one making ‘noise’.

Whereas Cork’s own Tony O’Donoghue simply said in his case it was mix up on paperwork- no different to similar scenarios he encountered elsewhere on his travels. Yet the media here cynically tried to conflate TO’D with the Danish journalist. But when you read what TO’D said the message was a lot different. Mix up no harm etc.

You seem very fond of the term ‘shill’. When I asked was TO’D a ‘shill’ in that scenario. The silence was deafening from you. As I assume you could not claim TO’D was a ‘no mark shill’. As he is a well respected journalist and known to Irish audiences.

Also two more Irish media football personalities (Ronnie Whelan and George Hamilton) declared that what they saw of Qatar it was a very safe place to bring families. And an enjoyable place to visit. Are they ‘no mark shills’ in your terms as well?

It doesn't have an impact.

1) It has no coherent cause or meaning - do England know what they are kneeling for anymore? It seems to have taken almost a religious vagueness at this stage!

2) I am talking about it because it is amusing to me - the half assed incoherence of it all

3) I edited my previous post as you responded - and mentioned the 'one love' armband farce.

Which Ian Wright correctly said protest must have 'meaning and consequence'. You take the yellow that is a statement.

Roy Keane said similar if you believe in do it. And getting a yellow would be much bigger statement.

And I understand both both points completely, as it as it would show sincerity to said - cause. But yet what did they do? Back down first time at the slightest threat. Which makes me think it was all all for show and the 'optics'.

As Roy Keane said - should have stuck to their guns.

You also keep claiming to be so well informed, but much of this is just wrong. It wasn't a gesture taken from a radical American political group. Kneeling or actively being seen to not engage in an activity or symbol have been a passive form of protest for as long as protests have been a thing. Kaepernick made it more famous recently in his protest against the US anthem as a result of police brutality against the Black community, so it was a gesture everyone was aware of as 'protest'. BLM and the British footballers both took it at the same time and used it within their own respective - and different - protests. Both were clear about what they were protesting. They are DIFFERENT THINGS. One can only be confused by it if they literally choose to be.

I've also gone through this subject in far greater detail in the past on this thread, so I reckon I'm probably just pissing into the wind at this stage, so I'll probably bow out of this one...

Sorry if I offended you. But those symbolic gestures are empty. They might give those people who do such gestures ‘a nice warm fuzzy feeling inside’ at best.

At worst it is ‘going through the motions’ because other people are doing it. By which stage it has lost its vague meaning, in any case.

Personally, they just amuse me as those in the media have to pretend such gestures are ‘powerful’.

As for America and the UK just type in ‘USA Qatar ally’ and ‘UK Qatar Ally’ and see what comes up. Only for them the Saudi’s would have annexed Qatar long ago.

Qatar built the yanks a military base, in Doha at massive costs. A mutually beneficial relationship.

Before the USA - the UK was the ‘protector in chief’ of Qatar. But still has military deals with them. And is a very close ally.

Qatar only exists because the US and UK say it can. Because of its geopolitical importance, as an ally in the Middle East.

If the ‘symbolism people’ like yourself were serious they would be pressuring their nations UK/USA to break diplomatic relations with Qatar. And freeze Qatari foreign assets and so on.

However, there is no political appetite for it. It is just empty gestures instead. And warm fuzzy caring feelings, from a distance.

But behind all the superficial noise, the realities of global politics take precedence - which make symbolic gestures seem even more silly than they already are - in my opinion.

I wonder how quickly Qatar will try to dump PSG and and related expenses involving football after Sunday.

No need to keep pumping billions into football now.

Argentina made very hard work of a match that should of been dead and buried a long time before they even gave France a peno. They wont care but they've done it that hard way for the whole tournament letting lead after lead slip.

In a way makes the win all the more special. Delighted that Messi got his crowning glory to round off a brilliant career. He stands equal with Maradona atop the pantheon of greats

On the closing ceremony I have a number of points on the media coverage/reaction to it.

I was very surprised at Joanne Cantwell's comments on the closing ceremony on RTE. She was stirring things up by wondering whether the Qatari's would shake hands with the female officials. It was close to incitement of religious hatred.

Even the most basic research (of why strict muslims do not shake hands with females) show that in Muslim culture not shaking hands with a female is viewed as a mark of respect and etiquette.

Instead, I believe Cantwell should have focused on the reasons why Qatari Muslims do not shake hands with women, rather than sneering at their religious beliefs. Gestures that are signs of respect in the West, are a sign a of disrespect or frowned upon in other cultures.

For example, in some middle eastern countries the thumbs up gesture is the equivalent to the western 'middle finger gesture'. Or in some Latin/Hispanic countries the 'OK hand gesture' means assh0le. Speaking of assh0les in the closing ceremony Infantino looked like a right plank. He should have hurried up and given Messi the trophy. I instantly thought of the time C.J Haughey 'won' the Tour De France in 1987.

As for Messi and the garb - like many others I thought it was bullsh!t. Odd symbolism etc.

But, apparently after doing a bit of research it not bullsh!t- but bisht.

'The bisht – a thin see-through traditional Arab cloak'

Dr Mustafa Baig, a lecturer in Islamic Studies at the University of Exeter, told the PA news agency that the bisht was a formal robe worn by royalty, dignitaries, grooms on their wedding day, and graduates at graduation ceremonies. “Only a select few people would actually wear the bisht,” he said.

Speaking about Messi wearing the garment, he said: “They basically honoured him by putting it over his shoulders. It’s like a mark of honour, and just kind of a cultural welcoming and a cultural acceptance.”

Dr Baig said it was also representative of Qatar’s national dress – but only at important occasions. “And this is a top occasion. I mean, there’s probably no bigger occasion, so they put it on him as a mark of honour,” he said.

Dr Baig said he saw it as “an embrace by Messi of the local culture”, adding that it was “a pretty cool thing” for Qatar to do and “smart thinking” on their behalf.

Not the thread for it, but that's not true is it?

Dragging a peripheral team in a top league to multiple titles is no mean feat, hardly ever achieved.

I think it is the thread for it. Messi finally emulating Maradona was a huge talking point of this tournament. And giving pros and cons to this is surely relevant?

Only seen this message. Maradona scored about 350 goals from midfield, and although Messi is a midfielder he does generally play higher up. They both drifted but Maradona roamed more and deeper.

As already pointed out he played in a league renowned for its defenders and in conditions not favouring the attacker. 350 career goals under the circumstances is an unbelievable return, he would of also played less games.

As for passing, on what metric can you say Messi categorically destroys him. I was giving my own take on that and would be off the opinion Maradona was the better playmaker generally. Is there statistics to say otherwise? Giving assist numbers is a fallacy when talking about playmaking, Ronaldo probably has more than Xavi, two yard passes hanging around the box all day, doesn't make him a better playmaker.

Someone put it well today on the radio. Argentina's win was a huge combined team effort, for the team to get their ageing genuis captain his world cup. Whereas 86 was a case of the genius carrying the others along!