logo
FIFA has taken us for fools over its promise to fight racism

FIFA has taken us for fools over its promise to fight racism

New York Times5 hours ago

Maybe ultimately, we're the fools.
Because did we expect anything else from FIFA? Did we really believe world football's governing body was going to make use of the colossal platform available to it? Did we actually think it was going to do even the bare minimum?
The news that FIFA has decided not to display any anti-racism or anti-discrimination messaging during games at the ongoing Club World Cup in the United States came with a grim inevitability. Despite rustling up some promotional materials for its 'no racism' and 'no discrimination' initiatives, none have been used so far in the first week of the tournament. There has been nothing in the stadiums, on social media, on captains' armbands. Anywhere at all, in fact.
Advertisement
When asked by The Athletic, FIFA did not comment on whether there was a link between this decision and the increasingly close relationship between its president Gianni Infantino and the competition's host nation's President Donald Trump, but as soon as it became clear that Infantino was prioritising nurturing that bond over, say, actually running FIFA, it probably should have been obvious that this was going to happen.
Trump's attempts to eradicate anything that faintly smells of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) — three words which he has, astonishingly, managed to redefine as bad things — already appear to have spilt over into sport.
February's Super Bowl was the first in four years not to have 'End racism' messaging in the stadium. In March, an article on the U.S. Department of Defense's website celebrating Jackie Robinson, the former soldier who became the first man to break the colour barrier in Major League Baseball (MLB), was removed amid a purge of government web content relating to DEI. The article on Robinson was eventually restored, but the direction of travel was clear.
So, when it came to FIFA and launching its new, greatly expanded Club World Cup with this first edition in the States, this was probably a case of when, rather than if.
From a strictly pragmatic, realpolitik point of view, you could argue that it's sensible for Infantino to cosy up to the president of the country hosting your next two global events, with much of the national-team World Cup next year being played in the U.S. too. But if that means abandoning any moral principles you have, or at least pretend to have, is it worth it?
Instead, FIFA's big message for this tournament is its 'Football Unites the World' slogan, which is displayed on captains' armbands, but not in many other places.
Advertisement
Football unites the world. Sure. But behind what? What is the force for good here? If you're saying that football has a broader social impact beyond just the game, then you have to give us something tangible to prove the point. Otherwise, it's just meaningless.
Still, perhaps that's the point.
At various intervals, FIFA and Infantino have spoken solemnly about their commitment to anti-racism. In January 2024, he encouraged the idea that teams should forfeit matches in the event of racist incidents. FIFA's 2022 World Cup sustainability report included a promise to carry out 'diversity and anti-discrimination awareness-raising initiatives.'
Good idea. If nothing else, football should be used to raise awareness. It's the most popular sport in the world, arguably the biggest cultural force on the planet. When, though, if not at the Club World Cup, the tournament FIFA has been telling us for years is going to be the greatest show on earth?
Would this not have been a pretty good opportunity to plaster everything with strong messaging, to make sure that if any viewers took anything from watching these games in America, it was that FIFA was committed to anti-discrimination?
It's a particularly Eurocentric point of view to label this tournament a waste of time, another brick placed on top of the Jenga tower that is the international football schedule. But it has much more value and holds much more interest to fans and clubs from other parts of the world. It is far from insignificant.
So at the very least, it could have been used as a platform, a method of influencing and drawing attention to the things that FIFA say it is committed to.
Football's messaging when it comes to discrimination messaging is generally dishwater-weak as it is.
UEFA, the game's European governing body, used to display a video before games in its competitions where famous football figures would stare into the camera and intone, in their native language, 'No to racism'. A noble sentiment, although it's stretching credibility to think that a racist would see, say, Pavel Nedved telling them that this sort of thing is not on, and thus change their ways.
Advertisement
But at least it was something. FIFA isn't even doing that.
Comparisons will be made to the row over the 'One Love' armbands a few teams suggested they were going to wear during matches at the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, an idea that FIFA nixed pretty quickly, and indeed pre-emptively banned from the Women's World Cup in Australia and New Zealand the following year.
That was an external initiative, though: from a corporate perspective, it was consistent with its stance that only FIFA-approved messaging could be used. This is different. This is FIFA actively jettisoning something it has previously declared to be a precious part of football's social fabric, apparently because it is politically inconvenient.
It all begs the question: if you can't even rely on FIFA to publicise what it claims to stand for, then what's the point?
FIFA didn't comment on its plans for the actual World Cup next summer, to be hosted in the United States, Canada and Mexico, but it doesn't bode well. What will the slogan be for that? 'Can everyone just be nice?' 'Please don't be mean to each other'? Could this be watered-down even further, to homeopathic levels? If anyone can, FIFA can.
It shouldn't be that hard to present some sort of worthwhile message, even if these are often frustratingly milquetoast. Major League Soccer and MLB recently carried out Pride initiatives, as did the Premier League. Teams in England were still taking the knee before games at the end of the most recent domestic season. But even that seems beyond FIFA.
Again, perhaps this is our fault.
Expect nothing, and you won't be disappointed. Expect the most basic expression of humanity, and you will.
This is FIFA, after all.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

What Motivated Murray Kempton's Pacifism?
What Motivated Murray Kempton's Pacifism?

Wall Street Journal

time10 minutes ago

  • Wall Street Journal

What Motivated Murray Kempton's Pacifism?

I'm grateful to Charles Lane for reviewing 'Going Around,' the collection of Murray Kempton's journalism that I edited (Bookshelf, June 3). I think it would please Kempton to be remembered so fondly in the Journal, 'whose editorials shine the shoes and press the trousers of American enterprise,' he once wrote, 'and whose news staff undresses American business down to the follies and frauds blotching its naked skin.' That was a compliment. He was a loyal reader. Yet I have to risk discourtesy to Mr. Lane, who praised my 'intellectual honesty,' by hazarding a word in defense of Kempton's youthful noninterventionism. As Mr. Lane points out, Kempton's pacifism in the 1930s and early '40s reflected a dreadful misapprehension—genuine myopia—of what it would take to stop Hitler. But the left-wing version of noninterventionism that he and his radical cohort espoused was rooted in what was essentially a humane drive to avoid the calamity of another world war and the permanent elision of the New Deal's welfare state into a national-security 'warfare state.'

Republican Congressman Calls On Trump To Expand Work Visas
Republican Congressman Calls On Trump To Expand Work Visas

Newsweek

time11 minutes ago

  • Newsweek

Republican Congressman Calls On Trump To Expand Work Visas

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A Republican Congressman has called on President Donald Trump to expand work visas after the administration's back-and-forth over its immigration enforcement policy targeting farms, hotels and restaurants. Maryland Representative Andy Harris, who chairs the House Freedom Caucus, said Tuesday that the president and Congress needed to make an effort to maintain the U.S. workforce while deporting immigrants with criminal records. His comments came after Trump said Thursday that he had heard concerns about workplace raids on farms and at hospitality venues, including restaurants and hotels, signaling a pause in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) actions. This was then walked back Monday night. "There has to be an effort to figure out how to make sure that we have the workforce we need, whether it's H-2A, H-2B, whether it's, again, a different category that will result in having an adequate number of workers here in the United States to keep the economy going," Harris told reporters. "The president acknowledged it. I believe that now may be the time to have Congress, again, look at these categories, revise the categories, create new categories as necessary as the president, again, attempts to deport people who are here, especially criminals who are here illegally. Clearly, the workforce issues are significant." Why It Matters Harris's comments reflect a growing concern among the GOP that labor shortages in critical industries could worsen without reforms to temporary work visa programs. The H-2A and H-2B visas allow U.S. employers to bring in foreign workers for seasonal agricultural and non-agricultural jobs, respectively. Trump has pledged to launch the largest mass deportation effort in U.S. history as part of his strategy to tackle illegal immigration and strengthen border security. However, the proposal has raised concerns about its impact on the U.S. economy. A group of Mexican H-2A seasonal farm workers harvest cucumbers in Eastern North Carolina, June 30, 2023. Inset: U.S. Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD) leaves a House Republican caucus meeting at the U.S. Capitol on June... A group of Mexican H-2A seasonal farm workers harvest cucumbers in Eastern North Carolina, June 30, 2023. Inset: U.S. Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD) leaves a House Republican caucus meeting at the U.S. Capitol on June 04, 2025 in Washington, DC. More Milton Lindsay/What To Know According to the American Business Immigration Coalition (ABIC), agricultural production could decline by $30 billion to $60 billion if Trump's deportation policy is fully enacted, while the American Immigration Council projects that the president's mass deportation policy could carry a one-time cost of $315 billion. Trump appeared to have heard some of those concerns when he posted on Truth Social last Thursday, but the pause on ICE workplace raids was then lifted on Monday. Harris said Tuesday that the president clearly realized that deporting known illegal immigrant criminals could run in parallel to improvements to work-based visas to ensure U.S. businesses could keep running. "With an unemployment rate of 4 percent, you're not going to find American workers for a lot of these tasks," Harris said. "You haven't found them even when the unemployment rate was higher." Alongside Harris at the ABIC briefing were restaurant and farming leaders, also concerned about ICE raids, who want to see long-term solutions. The Republican said others in Congress were aware that a long-term solution was needed to make sure farm workers could continue coming to the U.S. legally and that he hoped for progress within the next year. Other recent attempts to make significant changes to U.S. immigration laws have failed, with no major changes since the early 1990s. What People Are Saying President Trump wrote on Truth Social last week: "Our great Farmers and people in the Hotel and Leisure business have been stating that our very aggressive policy on immigration is taking very good, long time workers away from them, with those jobs being almost impossible to replace." Rebecca Shi, CEO, American Business Immigration Coalition told reporters on Jun 17: "We need Congress and the administration to go further with real solutions, and that's work visas for people who've lived, worked, and pay taxes here." Matt Teagarden, CEO of Kansas Livestock Association, speaking at Tuesday's briefing: "These raids disrupt our food supply and contribute to higher food prices. In addition to the workers who have been detained, they also instill fear in these communities, even for legal workers. We're encouraged by the President's recognition of the need for a balanced approach to this issue." What Happens Next The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has reversed last week's guidance that had temporarily halted workplace immigration raids at farms, hotels, and restaurants.

No tax on overtime: Senate GOP's bill could limit proposed tax break
No tax on overtime: Senate GOP's bill could limit proposed tax break

The Hill

time11 minutes ago

  • The Hill

No tax on overtime: Senate GOP's bill could limit proposed tax break

(NEXSTAR) — Last month, the House passed the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act,' a legislative package that combines tax breaks, spending cuts, border security funding and other priorities central to President Trump's agenda. On Monday, Americans got a glimpse at the Senate GOP's version of the 'big, beautiful bill' when the Finance Committee unveiled portions of its provisions. Broadly speaking, the committee's version of the budget bill would make permanent many of the core elements of the 2017 tax cuts while scaling back additional cuts from the House's version, The Hill explained Monday. Among the provisions outlined by Senate Republicans is one targeting taxes on overtime pay. In the House bill, the tax break would remove income taxes on the overtime pay premium for over 80 million hourly workers. For qualifying overtime, this would be a temporary full deduction of the overtime pay employees receive, ending after 2027. Under the current version of the Senate's bill, however, overtime pay would be deductible up to $12,500 or $25,000 for joint filers through 2028, The Hill reports. Tax breaks on tipping and car loan interest would also be capped. A scaled-back take on the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' isn't much of a surprise; some Senate Republicans had expressed frustration over the legislation, saying it needed deeper cuts. It's worth noting that, if the no-tax-on-overtime provision remains in the bill, it would not give way to a larger paycheck after working extra hours. Instead, because it is a deduction, employees would claim the overtime pay on their taxes during the following year. Qualifying for overtime pay may even be difficult, depending on an employee's work industry. Firefighters, for example, have to work 53 hours a week before qualifying for overtime, Edward Kelly, general president for the International Association of Fire Fighters, said in a statement obtained by NBC News last month. The Tax Foundation said last year that exempting overtime from income tax, then a campaign promise of Trump's, could encourage more employees to want to work overtime hours. It could, similarly, cause employers to 'be more aggressive to contain overtime requests as total labor costs rise.' The Congressional Budget Office warned that exempting overtime pay from income taxes could lead to $124 billion in lost tax revenue. It's too soon to say how fast the bill could pass in the Senate, and what tweaks could be made. Trump's big bill is the centerpiece of his domestic policy agenda, a hodgepodge of GOP priorities all rolled into what he calls the 'beautiful bill' that Republicans are trying to swiftly pass over unified opposition from Democrats — a tall order for the slow-moving Senate. Fundamental to the package is the extension of some $4.5 trillion in tax breaks approved during Trump's first term, in 2017, that are expiring this year if Congress fails to act. There are also new ones, including no taxes on tips, as well as more than $1 trillion in program cuts. After the House passed its version, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated the bill would add $2.4 trillion to the nation's deficits over the decade, and leave 10.9 million more people without health insurance, due largely to the proposed new work requirements and other changes. The Associated Press contributed to this report.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store