Qatar World Cup

Yep -

In a separate statement, a BrewDog spokesperson added it “thought long and hard about whether we wanted to show matches in our bars but decided to do so for two reasons.

“One, if you love craft beer and you also love football you shouldn’t be denied the chance to enjoy them together just because FIFA is corrupt.

“Two, all profits from Lost Lager sold during the tournament will be donated to human rights charities. We will raise a lot more money if we show the matches in our bars”

It added that the company is “evaluating a number of charity partners and that “net profits will be calculated at the end of December and all donations will be made in January 2023.”

When their brand marketing didn’t wash, they tried to distract from what they were doing by pointing to other brands doing the same thing to take the heat off themselves -

BrewDog then took a shot at other companies, saying: “Apple sells iPhones in Qatar – that doesn’t mean it endorses human rights abuses. Neither do we. We are doing our bit to raise awareness of these scandals and injustices and will keep doing so.” 

“If people want to attack brands, maybe they’d be better off turning their attention to the likes of Adidas, Kia and Visa who are all official partners.”

https://www.cityam.com/brewdog-signed-beer-distribution-deal-in-qatar-despite-anti-sponsorship-campaign/?amp=1

People wouldn’t be taking any notice of BrewDog if they hadn’t made a big song and dance about announcing themselves as an “anti-sponsor” of the World Cup in the first place.

On Newsnight this evening it was reported that the Welsh FA are considering 'safe houses' for lgbt people attending the WC. They didn't elaborate any more than that but if they meant they are going to put all the gay men in the same hotel then that's both the stupidest and funniest idea I've ever heard, lol.

Meanwhile, Gareth Southgate says that gay men would be embraced in the locker room. Pfffffff lol.

Yes, I won't be watching it

Never quite sure whether people genuinely mean this for reasons of naivety, or just because they have a right-wing viewpoint and don't like that the politics in football tends to be anti-establishment/left-wing/woke whatever.

As a big example, keeping politics out of football would mean you disapprove of Solidarity/Lech Walesa using Gdansk home games as a method of recruitment, and televised home European games as an avenue to chant rebellion songs at their fellow Poles and plead for help from the international community. That they should have found a different way to take on the secret police, army and Moscow, keeping politics out of football.

Meanwhile China has concentration camps, do you boycott them too? All electrical equipment coming from there, what about iPhones and the conditions in their factories in China, what about clothes made in sweatshops? Coco plantations and child labour, precious minerals from the Congo? Good luck boycotting all that.

It is the ‘pretence of caring’ that annoys me. I mean take Katie McCabe Ireland’s Women’s Captain for instance she says she won’t be watching the WC and urges players to ‘take a stand’.

She naively thinks that Harry Kane wearing a ‘one love’ armband is going to make a difference.

Now what the article above doesn’t show, when Katie was interviewed she said she will not watch the WC - ‘Ireland are not in it’ which implied that if Ireland were in it she would have decision to make.

The way I see it the occasional person not watching the WC makes little difference, all it does is make such individuals feel good about themselves.

If a real difference was the goal (no pun intended) all the Football Associations would refuse to attend. But that is never going to happen too much money involved.

So instead we have a ‘pretence of caring’. Like the Danish football shirt manufacturers who have turned a meaningless gimmick into an advertisement. Turning the ‘pretence of caring’ into a moneymaker.

I for one will still be watching the World Cup. Because I am not falling for this ‘pretence of caring’. It is laughable really. People only think of the ‘Human Rights’ record of Qatar at the moment because it is topical.

But no doubt the same people still buy products from China etc.

I mean I watched the USA 94 WC. But at the time I can’t remember people saying they would not watch it because America (CIA) was involved in the overthrow of democracies such as Chile, and putting Pinochet (a dictator) in charge. And that is only one example.

The reality is as the dust settles on the Qatar WC. What will be spoken about will be the play/goals on the pitch and everything else around it will be just background noise. And life will continue on.

If I remember correctly there was controversy about the Brazil WC in 2014- inequalities etc. But what it is most remembered for now is Germany 7 - Brazil 1.

Is there any Muslim country that is pro gay, never mind the whole spectrum of LGBTQ? Do you boycott all of them. Statistics from these countries show that the general population have very negative views too. Do you think refugees from these countries don’t hold these views?

The closer we get to the event the more obvious it becomes that the whole human rights media circus focusses firmly on the evergreen LGBT angle. As if it’s news that some counties are eons behind the attitude that has thankfully developed in the West. Sure, boycott all you want so you can tell yourself that this made a difference. You know full well that the only way it will change in these countries it the change comes from within, not by wearing colourful arm badges.

Fully agreed gormdubhgorm, it's next to impossible to avoid doing any indirect harm to others. But that's no reason to avoid trying to minimise the damage our consumption is causing. Sure, I still have clothes from Penneys that are likely made in sweatshops but it's rare I buy clothes at all and definitely wouldn't be the sort to buy a new outfit for every big night out (or see clothes shopping as a form of entertainment), my phone no doubt has lithium mined by child labour so while I can't do without it, I'll try and get as long out of it as I can.

Short of being fortunate enough to build on a small-holding somewhere where you can be truly self-sufficient, it's impossible to "do no harm" these days. Choosing to spend one's holidays (and money) in Qatar for the World Cup, however, is an entirely avoidable evil.

Nah Sleepy I don’t agree at all with the idea of guilt by association, and I don’t see it as doing anything useful towards addressing the issues you’re concerned about either. In reality all it actually achieves is the effect of performative activism - people not wanting to be seen as contributing to or facilitating the issues you’re concerned about only boycotting the event because they’re seeking your approval, not because they actually agree that what they’re doing is harmful.

It’s similar to Vegans who claim that people who aren’t vegan are directly responsible for animal cruelty. It’s a stretch is what I’m saying, maintaining other people are motivated by ill intent rather than being motivated by something else entirely, in the case of the World Cup - because they love football, or they want to support their team, or indeed they’ve never been to Qatar and want to experience it for themselves and see what all the fuss is about, and now they have an opportunity.

I do agree with you though that anyone suggesting “everyone else is doing it” as a justification for their actions is someone who knows that what they’re doing is wrong, sort of like that Brewdog beer company that announced themselves as “anti-sponsor” of the World Cup, who pointed fingers at everyone else when they were criticised for their actions which directly contradicted their ‘principled’ stance.

It washed away any integrity Senator Gerard Craughwell ever had