Calacus Monthly Hit & Miss – Iran Football & FIFA
Every month we look at the best and worst communicators in the sports world.
HIT – IRAN FOOTBALL
The controversial 2022 FIFA World Cup kicked off in Qatar in late November, engendering mixed emotions with a love of football sitting uneasily alongside feelings of disquiet and anger about human rights.
When Iran faced England in their first game of the tournament, it prompted more political controversy with Iran’s players making a courageous yet silent protest that has had the largest impact of all.
Mass protests have been rife in Iran following the death of Mahsa Amini in custody in September, a 22-year-old woman who was detained for not conforming to the strict rules around head coverings.
Human rights activists have reported that more than 400 protesters have been killed so far, and a further 16,000 detained by Iran’s security forces.
In a pre-match press conference, defender Ehsan Hajsafi expressed his solidarity. “In the name of God, creator of rainbows” expressing his condolences for the grieving families at home.
“They should know that we are with them and we support them and we sympathise with them regarding the conditions.
“We have to accept the conditions in our country are not right and our people are not happy. We are here but it does not mean we should not be their voice or we must not respect them.
“Whatever we have is from them. We have to fight. We have to perform and score some goals to present the brave people of Iran with a result. I hope conditions change as to the expectations of the people.”
The national team had previously come under fire for meeting with President Ebrahim Raisi prior to the tournament, with fans accusing the squad of siding with the government and “not being representative of them but of the clerical establishment.”
In support of the anti-government protests, Iran’s players then refused to sing their national anthem ahead of the Group B match. The statement was both deftly designed and immensely powerful.
This was not the first time the Iranian side had made a protest to distance themselves from their government, having covered up their national team badge during two warm-up games in September. The majority of the side also refused to sing the national anthem in their match against Nicaragua.
Activist Negin Shiraghaei believes their protest is too little too late.
She said: “There are pictures of them bowing in front of the Islamic Republic’s president. And that made people really furious, because for weeks now there has been outcry from the people, from the public, saying you have to show solidarity to the victims of brutal oppression and crackdown inside the country.
“There is a lot of rage and I think it's completely justified. At the same time, they were in front of the president, there were people getting killed on the streets.
“[Not playing is] the only way they can come back from this as the heroes. But I don't have that much hope.”
Masih Alinejad, another activist based in New York added: “Iran is the only country in the World Cup that its people want their national football team to lose since the team doesn't represent the people but the regime.”
The uprising against the national team was apparent in their home country as crowds on the streets hailed the comprehensive 6-2 England victory.
Despite this, the protest of the players was echoed in the crowd. Chants of “Ali Karimi”, a former Iranian footballer and coach, and outspoken critic of the Islamic regime, rang out throughout the game and Iranian fans held signs with the message “Woman, Life, Freedom”.
Amongst the sea of signs and flags, women were seen with their hair fully on display, draped in Iranian flags, a symbolic and poignant image.
Some Iranian players had bravely made their opinions abundantly clear ahead of the tournament.
Brentford Midfielder and Iranian International Saman Ghoddos expressed his solidarity with the protestors: “Of course, I don’t want to mix politics with football but football is coming to the side right now, because people are losing their lives fighting for freedom.
“Clearly a change needs to come and it’s already been going on for so long. We all want to change.
“If you think it’s the right thing to do, I think you should [speak out] because you are a famous athlete. If you can put a light on what’s going on you should do it – with the pressure or without the pressure because it’s the right thing to do.”
Ghoddos continued “What the people want is nothing special, it’s just freedom. I don’t want to say ‘Yeah, go fight for it’ because I don’t think violence is the right way. But something has to change and this has been going on for too long.”
These acts of defiance do not come without risk for the Iranian team, with the chairman of the Tehran city council saying: “We will never allow anyone to insult our anthem and flag.”
There were also calls from an MP in Kurdistan for the Iranian national team to be replaced with youthful and revolutionary individuals.
The Iranian authorities continue to suppress dissent regardless of profile, as Iranian ex-international footballer Voria Ghafouri was recently detained after a training session with his club Foolad Khuzestan for supporting the riots and taking part in “propaganda against the regime.”
When asked about potential repercussions, Iran’s manager Carlos Queiroz said the players were “free to protest” about their beliefs regarding the situation in their home country as long as it “conforms with the World Cup regulations and is in the spirit of the game.”
However, two members of their international football team were arrested and later released on bail with charges related to the protests hours before Iran’s kick-off against the USA.
Despite extensive coverage of the game around the world, pro-government press in Iran made no mention of the protest and cut coverage of the national anthem on Iran State TV, with the silent protest only reported by reformist press.
To negate the Iranian media’s efforts, Sadar Azmoun, the Bayer Leverkusen forward, wrote on Instagram: “At worst I’ll be kicked out of the national team, which is a small price to pay for even a single strand of Iranian women’s hair. Shame on you for killing the people.”
The potential repercussions of refusing to sing their national anthem has triggered a change in approach from the Iran team.
They ended their silent protest and sung their national anthem, although for some it was a gentle murmuring, before their game against Wales, to a reception of heavy booing from the Iran supporters inside the Ahmed bin Ali Stadium.
The protest has also highlighted the segregation amongst the fans with tension growing between pro-government and anti-government fans outside the stadium, while security staff confiscated anti-government political materials inside the arena.
However, the ongoing protest in Qatar has conveyed the message that rather than being an extension of the regime, these courageous players are using the platform the World Cup has given them to speak loudly for tolerance and freedom, a lesson several nations would do well to reflect on.
MISS – FIFA
When Russia and Qatar were awarded the 2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cups respectively, cynics in the world of sport were far from surprised.
The word ‘corruption’ should not be bandied around lightly, but the fact that the Department of Justice in the United States served indictments to some connected to the bidding amid accusations of bribery has overshadowed the international governing body ever since.
One could argue that FIFA got away with one when it came to Russia 2018, with little more than murmuring about human rights despite the host’s questionable policies.
There were reports of more than 100 men going missing in the Russian republic of Chechnya after the launch of an anti-gay campaign.
A UK Foreign Affairs Committee report released ahead of the tournament said that LGBT individuals would be at “significant risk,” as they “not only face the risk of violence from vigilante groups, but lack adequate protection from the state.”
Ultimately the tournament passed without major incident, giving Russian president Vladimir Putin the PR coup he wanted to build his popularity before the move towards war against Ukraine this year.
With the four-year cycle switching to Qatar, the global consciousness – and the global conscience for that matter – has been far more vociferous given the controversies that have overshadowed the tournament.
Earlier this year, Norwegian football President Lise Klaveness, spoke at the 72nd FIFA Congress and remarked: “FIFA must act as a role model. Our game can inspire dreams and break down barriers, but as leaders, we must do it right to the highest standards.
“In 2010, the World Cup was awarded by FIFA in unacceptable ways with unacceptable consequences. There is no room for employers who do not secure the freedom and safety of World Cup workers. No room for hosts that cannot legally guarantee the safety and respect of LGBTQ+ people coming to this theatre of dreams.”
It's fair to say that, while admirable of Klaveness, his sentiments have not been heeded.
While there is a dispute over the numbers, the Guardian estimates that there have been 6,500 migrant deaths over 10 years, with those helping to build the stadia and infrastructure living and working in terrible conditions which has seen the tournament labelled “The World Cup built on modern slavery.”
The tournament was also moved from summer to winter, cutting across the domestic season in European leagues to add further controversy to the event.
While hosting a major sports competition is often positioned as a tool for positive change, Human Rights Watch criticised the Qatari authorities for its discriminatory male guardianship system which gives few rights to women. And little if no progress has been made.
Any faint hope that FIFA President Gianni Infantino would take the Organising Committee to task appeared impossible after reports in the Swiss newspaper SonntagsBlick that he had moved to Qatar himself.
The organisers have done little to change the narrative, with images of unfinished or spartan fan tent accommodation compared to the ill-fated Fyre Fest, and when FIFA needed some good news on the eve of the tournament, they scored another own goal.
With top sponsors paying up to $100m to be part of the four-year cycle, it came as a shock that Qatar’s strict alcohol controls were being extended with no alcohol sold at stadia apart from in the hospitality sections.
Leading partner Budweiser would be the biggest loser, and have valiantly tried to put a positive spin on developments by announcing that fans of the World Cup winners will get the beer that would have been sold at the event.
On the eve of the tournament, a leader with more humility might have accepted that mistakes had been made and lessons could be learnt.
No leader with a shred of integrity, especially not one with an ego and wanting to leave a positive legacy, would want to have blood on their hands and ignore the huge elephants in the room.
But Infantino is not that man, and used his press conference to lash out bizarrely at his critics.
“Today I have very strong feelings, I can tell you.” said Infantino.
“Today I feel Qatari. Today I feel Arab. Today I feel African. Today I feel gay. Today I feel disabled. Today I feel a migrant worker.
“For what we Europeans have been doing for the last 3,000 years around the world, we should be apologising for the next 3,000 years.
“You want to stay at home and say how bad they are, these Arabs, these Muslims, because it’s not allowed to be publicly gay. I believe it should be allowed. But it is a process. If someone thinks that hammering and criticising will achieve something, well I can tell you it will be exactly the opposite. It will close more doors.
“They (Qatar) have confirmed and I can confirm that everyone is welcome. If you have a person here and there who says the opposite, it’s not the opinion of the country, it’s certainly not the opinion of FIFA.”
We cannot ignore the fact that Infantino, whether as a distraction or as part of some vast stream of consciousness, then suggested that secretive pariah state North Korea, guilty of weapons testing in recent months that could escalate into war, could be considered for a future World Cup, to help bring people together.
Nicholas McGeehan, director of the human rights group FairSquare, was critical of Infantino’s remarks.
He said: “Infantino’s comments were as crass as they were clumsy and suggest that the FIFA president is getting his talking points directly from the Qatari authorities.
“Deflection and whataboutery have always been at the core of Qatar’s PR efforts to defend its rank failures, and now they have the FIFA president doing their work for them.”
Amnesty International also released a statement, saying: “In brushing aside legitimate human rights criticisms, Gianni Infantino is dismissing the enormous price paid by migrant workers to make his flagship tournament possible – as well as FIFA’s responsibility for it.
“Demands for equality, dignity and compensation cannot be treated as some sort of culture war – they are universal human rights that FIFA has committed to respect in its own statutes.”
There is very little at this point that FIFA could do to make things worse – but they have done so by threatening players with a caution or worse if they wear a rainbow armband with “One Love” written on it.
Teams including England, Wales, Belgium, Holland, Switzerland, Denmark, and Germany had all announced in October that they would wear the OneLove rainbow captain’s armband as an act of solidarity with the LGBTQ+ community who are criminalised in Qatar.
Hours before England’s opening game against Iran, the nations issued a joint statement confirming that they would now not wear the armbands or risk a yellow card.
"We are very frustrated by the FIFA decision which we believe is unprecedented." read the statement.
"FIFA has been very clear that it will impose sporting sanctions if our captains wear the armbands on the field of play. We were prepared to pay fines that would normally apply to breaches of kit regulations and had a strong commitment to wearing the armband. However, we cannot put our players in the situation where they might be booked or even forced to leave the field of play."
America's top diplomat criticised the decision and said it was “always concerning... when we see any restrictions on freedom of expression. It’s especially so when the expression is for diversity and for inclusion.
"And in my judgment, no one on a football pitch should be forced to choose between supporting these values and playing for their team.”
Some would argue that to defy the threats would have been one of football’s ‘Jesse Owens’ moments, citing the black sprinter who won four gold medals at the 1936 Olympic Games in Berlin which were seen as a showpiece for the Third Reich and their Nazi leader Adolf Hitler.
It’s also hard to argue that a protest with permission is as meaningful as one done on instinct or conviction.
The German Football Federation’s media director, Steffen Simon, explained that England had been put under severe pressure not to wear the armbands and that they were considering legal action against the governing body.
He commented: “The tournament director went to the English team and talked about multiple rule violations and threatened with massive sporting sanctions without specifying what these would be.
“We were in an extreme situation, in an extreme blackmail and we thought we had to take that decision without wanting to do so.
“We lost the armband and it is very painful but we are the same people as before with the same values. We are not impostors who claim they have values and then betray them. I can understand the disappointment. We had the choice between the plague and cholera.
“FIFA has forbidden us from using a symbol of diversity and human rights. It said the ban would be linked to massive penalties (in the nature of) sporting sanctions without concretising exactly what it meant. The DFB is keen to clarify whether Fifa’s procedure is in fact legitimate.”
The fact that the German team did their team photo for their opening game against Japan with hands over their mouths and then Germany interior minister Nancy Faeser wore the armband as she sat next to Infantino in the stands of their opening game against Japan.
Germany head coach Flick explained: “It was a sign, a message that we wanted to send out. We wanted to convey the message that Fifa is silencing us," he said after his side's 2-1 defeat.
The Germany football federation (DFB) said on Twitter: "It wasn't about making a political statement.
"Human rights are non-negotiable. That should be taken for granted, but it still isn't the case. That's why this message is so important to us.
"Denying us the armband is the same as denying us a voice. We stand by our position."
In another move to underline a lack of tolerance, FIFA banned Belgium’s away kit which has the word "Love" on the collar and a rainbow-coloured trim on the shirt standing for diversity, equality and inclusivity.
Belgium's Jan Vertonghen said he is "afraid" to talk about human rights after the rainbow-themed armbands were banned at the World Cup.
He said: "I'm afraid if I say something about this I might not be able to play tomorrow.
"It's an experience I've never felt in football before. I feel controlled. I'm afraid to even say something about this.
"We're just saying normal things about racism and discrimination and if you can't even say things about it, that says it all. I want to appear on the pitch tomorrow, so I'll leave it at that."
But the fact that Wales fans later had rainbow hats confiscated by local authorities while renowned journalist Grant Wahl was refused entry to the United States game and blogged: “The entire episode left me wondering: What's it like for ordinary Qataris who might wear a rainbow shirt when the world isn't watching here? What's that like?”
The Football Supporters Association made a statement which summed up where football has descended: “To paraphrase FIFA president Gianni Infantino – today LGBT+ football supporters and their allies will feel angry. Today we feel betrayed.
“Today we feel contempt for an organisation that has shown its true values by giving the yellow card to players and the red card to tolerance.
“Never again should a World Cup be handed out solely on the basis of money and infrastructure. No country which falls short on LGBT+ rights, women’s rights, worker’s rights or any other universal human right should be given the honour of hosting a World Cup.
“Since 2010 we have been raising questions about the suitability of Qatar as a World Cup host. Everyone could see this coming and it’s astonishing that, on the morning of England’s World Cup opener, FIFA are censoring players and the nine national FAs – including the FA and FAW – who wish to share a positive message.”
Qatar hit back, with their World Cup chief Hassan Al-Thawadi said the armbands were sending out a "divisive message", which he thinks it as a protest against Islamic values and an Islamic country hosting a major event. His words could be interpreted as an admission that not everyone would be treated equally if their sexual orientation did not follow Qatar’s laws.
Nevertheless, credit to British Sports Minister Stuart Andrew, who happens to be gay, who wore the OneLove armband during England’s 3-0 victory over Wales and said: "In the unique position I have, as a sports minister, I feel I have to represent everybody and to say to FIFA to please have a look at these issues.
"There are a lot of fans out there who want to come and support their teams. We have a great match going on tonight, it's just sad some people feel they can't come."
With the World Cup being held in Canada, the United States and Mexico in 2026, FIFA has plenty of time to address its own shortcomings.
Whether it has the appetite to do so remains to be seen.