One Love... but only when it's allowed
Since the 2022 World Cup was confirmed as being in Qatar, FIFA and other associated organisers have come under fire for staging such a world renowned event in a country with so many violations where human rights are concerned.
Simply organising this event in Qatar is said to have resulted in hundreds of migrant worker deaths, due to the dangerous and exploitative conditions that the workers faced. Concerns have also been raised over the hostile, and quite frankly unsafe, environment that LGBTQ+ players and fans alike will be subjected to as a result of the World Cup being hosted in this location.
Despite the backlash, however, i'm sure most of us know the tournament is still going ahead over in Qatar, after kicking off last week on November 20th.
And, though both the Qatari governement and FIFA officials insist that everyone is welcome regardless of sexuality, members of the LGBTQ+ community have been left with doubts after looking at the country's track record of how they've been treated in the past.
For starters, it is illegal to be LGBTQ+ in Qatar. Sexual acts with someone of the same sex can carry a sentence of up to three years in prison and a hefty fine. Not only this, homosexuality is punishable by death under Sharia law, and while there are no known death penalties given for being gay, it is thought that there are likely to be many that have gone unreported.
Because of all of this, I think many people, especially those who identify as LGBTQ+ were pleased to see the England national team announce their plans to wear 'One Love' armbands during their matches at the world cup.
This decision by the team showed their commitment to standing in solidarity with members of the LGBTQ+ community, and proved that while they still made the decision to appear in Qatar rather than boycott the tournament completely, they still condemn the laws and treatment subjected upon anyone not "straight".
However, it came as a huge disappointment to many when FIFA revealed that teams would be banned from wearing the armbands during matches, and they would instead be made to wear bands featuring the words "No Discrimination". This came after players were warned that should they appear to sport "One Love"on their kit, they could be faced with immediate bookings (yellow or red cards) or forced to leave the pitch all together.
Of course, it isn't entirely surprising that teams would want to avoid being booked for something completely unrelated to football. There is time enough for that during game play. However, it has led to even more backlash from the public, many of whom believe that the armbands should still be worn regardless of the consequences.
From a PR point of view, this one is a tricky one.
On the one hand, I agree with the public. If you have committed to doing something to show solidarity, it doesn't make a lot of sense to suddenly change your mind just because someone disagrees with your decision. To truly and authentically show solidarity you have to be dedicated to the cause, not just doing it because you think you should.
The idea of a team as big as England wearing arm bands that promote inclusivity on the biggest football stage in the world is HUGE to the LGBTQ+ community. But they want it to be genuine, not done to meet quotas. To suddenly decide you're not going to show solidarity anymore because you might face backlash is a move that suggests maybe you weren't especially interested in the cause to start with.
On the other hand, however, can also see the side of the team. It is the biggest football tournament in the world, and it is something that players work towards their entire careers. To risk getting booked the second players walk on the pitch is a terrible idea, and I suppose one could argue that wearing an armband or not wearing an armband has no bearing on the individual's personal morals.
The team not wearing One Love armbands does not automatically mean they no longer support the cause. So you can, in a way, see where they are coming from.
Something I found particularly interesting about this situation, was that despite the teams agreeing to pay the fines incurred by breaches of kit, FIFA still threatened them all with sporting sanctions had they chosen to go ahead and wear the armbands. Essentially giving them no choice but to surrender.
It was also disheartening to see that FIFA had been informed well in advance of the intentions for a number of teams to wear these armbands to "actively support inclusion in football" and yet made the decision at the very last minute.
Members of the Qatari government have insisted that there was no pressure from their side to cease the wearing of the armband, suggesting that FIFA were alone in their decision to ban it.
If that is the case, it raises many questions as to what the reasoning behind the decision was. However, I think it is fair to say that whatever the reason, their decision does not look good on them in a PR light, and definitely has the potential to damage their reputation.
Do you agree with FIFA's decision? I'd love to hear other thoughts and opinions!
Chloe Rose
