In 2010 when FIFA awarded the 2022 World Cup to Qatar there was widespread accusations of vote buying, ignoring human rights and the kafala system which governs the rights of foreign workers in the country.
The selection process involved several controversies. Two members of the FIFA Executive Committee had their voting rights suspended following allegations that they would accept money in exchange for votes. More allegations of vote buying arose after Qatar's win was announced. Eleven of the 22 committee members who voted on the 2018 and 2022 tournaments have been fined, suspended, banned for life or prosecuted for corruption.
In May of 2015 The FBI arrested several members of FIFA's executive committee in Zurich following the unsealing of the charges at a press conference in New York with then Attorney General Lorretta Lynch and then FBI Director James Comey.
Following these arrests former FIFA President Sep Blatter; (Which involved members of his executive committee.) won reelection to be the head of FIFA.
In 2023, activists received reliable reports confirming that in mid-2022 the Criminal Court of Appeal in the capital, Doha upheld the convictions against brothers Hazza and Rashed al-Marri, both of them lawyers, for offences that included contesting laws ratified by the emir, “threatening” the emir on social media, compromising the independence of the state, organizing unauthorized public meetings, and “violating” social values online. They had been sentenced to life imprisonment. The charges related to speeches they made or poetry published online critical of the country’s electoral law that discriminates against members of al-Marri tribe.
Migrants’ rights
Migrant workers continued to face serious abuses, including wage theft, restrictions on changing jobs and inadequate grievance and redress mechanisms.
In early January, hundreds of marshals and security guards contracted to Qatar-based Teyseer Security Services, who had worked excessive hours without rest days on FIFA World Cup 2022 sites, staged protests days before their contracts expired to demand they be paid their dues in full.1 They told Amnesty International that representatives of Teyseer and the government promised they would be compensated, a pledge that was not honoured.
The kafala, or sponsorship, system defines the relationship between foreign workers and their local sponsor, or kafeel, which is usually their employer. It has been used in Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries—Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates—as well as Jordan and Lebanon. Both Bahrain and Qatar claim to have abolished the system, though critics say reforms are poorly enforced and don’t amount to abolition.
Under this system, the state gives local individuals or companies sponsorship permits to employ foreign laborers (except in Bahrain, where workers are sponsored by a government agency rather than individual employers). The sponsor covers travel expenses and provides housing, often in dorm-like accommodations or, in the case of domestic workers, the sponsor’s home. Rather than hiring an individual directly, sponsors sometimes use private recruitment agencies [PDF] in the countries of origin to find workers and facilitate their entry to the host country.
These employers have complete control of those they hire. Redress for grievances and work and safety violations aren't available. Its similar to being an indentured servant.
The governing body's sub-committee on human rights and social responsibility concluded that Fifa "has a responsibility" to contribute to compensation for workers harmed by the tournament's preparation and delivery.
"There are workers who have contributed to the resounding success of the World Cup... who have not yet benefited from any, or any adequate remediation," it says.
What does Fifa say?
In response, Fifa said: "All reports and recommendations were considered during a comprehensive review by the Fifa administration and relevant bodies.
"While all recommendations could not be met, practical and impactful elements were retained. It should be noted that the study did not specifically constitute a legal assessment of the obligation to remedy.
