BEHIND THE PLAY #75

A host country is at war. With itself.

I regularly question where I sit on the political spectrum. I just don’t see a party that captures what I value without also being associated with something I really don’t care for.

But out of that middling privilege and self-indulgence, I have moments of clarity and certainty that focus my words and actions. There have been three recently. Elon Musk giving a nazi salute at an event tied to Trump’s inauguration was the first. I deleted my Twitter account the same day. Next was considerably more personal. The attack on our sovereignty by the American President. Whether it was being phrased as annexation or economic strangulation it was enough to shock me into changing my buying habits and resolve to not go to the US until this administration was out of power and a new government apologized for treating us like an enemy.

This still though wasn’t enough to make me think the World Cup should not run this summer. That has now changed with the extrajudicial killings of two American citizens in Minnesota recently and the fact that it is being made clear those who shot them will face no consequences despite the litany of video evidence available. America is in the throes of chaos and it’s going to get worse before it gets better.

A few days ago the President of St Pauli, probably the most left-leaning and progressive club in Germany, suggested that countries boycott the World Cup. Oke Gottlich told a local newspaper that “the time has come to seriously consider and discuss this” in regards to a boycott.

But so far there’s very few others of note who are suggesting that countries boycott. I expect that to change as conversations at the decision-making levels of national teams are held. It will be hard for many of them to not take a stance on whether it’s safe for their supporters to attend World Cup games in the United States this summer. Some will hedge, some will likely say they have not made a final decision about their participation and their recommendation to their supporters but they will all need to consider this very soon.

Personally, I don’t think that decision should be left with continental federations and national associations. I don’t think a boycott should be the remedy.

The remedy should be FIFA postponing this World Cup for a year.

I don’t think any rational person believes this is the end of ICE randomly throwing people into vehicles and flying them to detention centres thousands of miles from where they live. Sadly, we probably haven’t seen the last American shot dead in the streets by them either.

No one knows what the US will look like in early June when the World Cup starts. Nobody. With President Trump reserving the right to cancel games in cities he deems “out of control” and move them to other cities on short notice and the potential for full military level violence in the streets on an ongoing basis its fair to say there’s a better chance of civil unrest getting worse before it gets better. Ironically, its worth noting that the US homicide rate, per capita, just hit a historic low but why let facts get in the way of a brewing civil war.

An Economist/YouGov poll conducted between January 16-19 showed that 71% of those who responded felt the US was “out of control.” Another 11% weren’t sure which left just 18% of respondents saying the country was still under control. It’s also worth noting that these findings cut across party lines with 50% of those who identified themselves as Trump supporters said the country was “out of control.” An article in The Atlantic, published yesterday (Jan 25) carefully but methodically laid out why it is now fair to consider the Trump administration fascist. For those not familiar with The Atlantic it takes a doggedly centrist view of social and political issues.

The first game of the World Cup is less than twenty weeks away. There are already four countries (Haiti, Iran, Senegal, Ivory Coast) that have qualified for the World Cup whose citizens will not be able to get a visa to come watch their team play. The regularly changing list of who can and can’t get in and the byzantine policies and visa types will almost certainly see thousands more turned away at their point of entry to the US this summer.

I say this as someone who’s been to three World Cups and someone who believes that countries have the right to set their own immigration policies and set their own criteria for naturalized citizenship. I also say this as a naturalized citizen of Canada having moved here when I was ten months old and went on to play for Canada at the youth and (very briefly) men’s team level. In other words, I’m very invested in where immigration issues intersect with the running of a World Cup.

At a macro level when it comes to immigration you will see two things stand out clearly. Those looking to leave their country will look to move somewhere that they see and believe offers a better life for them. You will also see that it is mostly those countries that are perceived as desirable places to move to that have had, for decades, the most accommodating policies for immigrants. Many countries make it virtually impossible to gain full citizenship for immigrants. So as much as I disagree with large portions of what passes for American domestic and foreign ‘policy’ these days, I accept that Americans, like all countries, have the right to determine who they allow in and on what basis and that there are many countries that have never come close to having immigration policies as liberal and inclusive as both Canada and the United States.

The question that is increasingly becoming the key one to address in risk management discussions in Zurich is not ‘should’ the World Cup be postponed but what reasons would trigger that decision. Where is the red line on this?

Is it the likelihood of operational unpredictability once the tournament begins? None of the following are far-fetched.

• Games being moved from some cities at the whim of the Department of Homeland Security

• Massive amounts of fans from some countries arriving at airports only to be turned away

• Protests tied in World Cup host cities being met by the same violence we’re seeing in Minneapolis

Maybe it’s simply the morality of holding the World Cup in a country under siege from within. There is the potential that by June instead of just Minneapolis we see the Insurrection Act initiated and US military confronting citizens in dozens of cities. Perhaps a nationwide general strike as was just suggested by Scott Galloway on one of the most popular podcasts in the world. Civic activity being grinding to a halt. Does FIFA have the capacity to postpone if they feel this scenario is likely? To host what would be a lengthy party amidst cities in flames? It feels crazy typing that when it refers to the USA but its a necessary conversation point now.

Is it likely that one or more nations will boycott if FIFA doesn’t postpone? I don’t think so but if it does happen I suspect it would be a cohort announcing this together.

Maybe FIFA thinks it could weather all these issues and still negotiate its way to completion of the tournament. What they then might be looking at is how this would impact the brand integrity and value for the World Cup going forward.

FIFA is an arrogant organization facing a potentially horrendous scenario. They either run the World Cup and hope that a maelstrom of civic unrest the likes of which the USA has never seen doesn’t happen or they postpone the event and deal with monumental legal, financial and administrative chaos that may threaten their own viability going forward.

For me running the World Cup during what will quite possibly be a catastrophic summer of discontent in the USA is irresponsible. Postponing would be recognition that the situation is untenable and a brave, but rare, statement of leadership from the world’s governing body of the game.