17 Jan 25 | Middle East and North Africa, News and features, Saudi Arabia
Last month’s official confirmation that Saudi Arabia has been chosen as the host of the 2034 World Cup is evidence that sport has a long way to go when it comes to the protection of human rights and freedoms.
Saudi Arabia’s acquisition of the most prestigious competition in international football is just the state’s latest foray into the sporting world. The state has already been accused by critics of sportswashing – using sport to divert attention from its bad practices – due to other hosting and funding duties in Formula 1 races and golf tournaments, amongst other events.
It is no surprise that Saudi Arabia is keen to enhance its international standing; the nation caused global outrage in 2018 when journalist Jamal Khashoggi was murdered at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, an act that is believed by US intelligence to be state sanctioned but which Saudi Arabia strongly denies.
Lawyer Rodney Dixon, who has represented Khashoggi’s fiancée Hatice Cengiz, has warned against a Saudi World Cup. “FIFA should not permit Saudi Arabia to host the World Cup if it continues to flagrantly disregard human rights in several areas in breach of Fifa’s own policies,” he jointly wrote in a legal submission with other legal experts. “It is obvious that Saudi Arabia falls very far short of those requirements.”
Concerns have been raised about Saudi Arabia’s commitment to protect human rights and freedoms in other areas such as their poor record on women’s rights, LGBTQ+ rights, treatment of migrant workers and lack of media freedom. In Freedom House’s latest Freedom in the World report the state was categorised as not free, as “Saudi Arabia’s absolute monarchy restricts almost all political rights and civil liberties”. Such a description hardly lends itself to the idea that a Saudi World Cup is deserved, or even well intentioned – despite the insistences from football’s governing authorities.
FIFA’s decision to award the World Cup to Saudi Arabia has therefore already been held under much scrutiny. The legitimacy of the decision-making process itself has been called into question after the governing body implemented a fast-track application process which resulted in Saudi Arabia’s bid being unopposed.
The decision is also potentially a violation of FIFA’s own human rights policy, which was adopted by the organisation in 2017 and pledges to “go beyond its responsibility to respect human rights… by taking measures to promote the protection of human rights”. By awarding the world’s most-watched sporting event to a nation with such an unfavourable record on human rights and freedoms, FIFA falls far short of such promises.
However, FIFA isn’t the only governing body to back the move. The Football Association (FA) – England’s leading authority on football – also supported Saudi Arabia’s bid, a move that has been defended by FA chair Debbie Hewitt.
A statement from the FA said: “[The Saudi Arabian Football Federation] assured us that they are fully committed to providing a safe and welcome environment for all fans.” This line was repeated by Saudi Arabia’s sports minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Turki Al Faisal, who claimed that “everyone is welcome” at the tournament. However, with same-sex activity strictly forbidden in the state, it’s unlikely that LGBTQ+ people will feel confident about such a warm welcome – Jake Daniels, the only openly gay active male professional footballer in the UK, told the BBC last year that he “wouldn’t feel safe” at a Saudi World Cup.
Saudi Arabia has already shown its desire to become a big name in the footballing world. Having hosted the 2023 Club World Cup, they have since been awarded the privilege of hosting the 2025 Supercoppa Italiana and the 2027 Asian Cup, as well as agreeing a deal to host the Spanish Super Cup until at least 2029.
Further ventures have also been made into a number of different sports, with the state hosting major events such as the boxing match between Tyson Fury and Oleksandr Usyk, which took place last year and was described as “the biggest pay-per-view fight in history”.
Saudi Arabia defends itself against claims that it is utilising sport as a means of distracting the public from their poor human rights record by suggesting that it is using sport as a means of changing attitudes. However, similar arguments were used by Qatar when protests were made against it hosting the 2022 World Cup, but such change has failed to materialise.
We have a duty to question the motivations behind the sudden interest of undemocratic states in sporting events, and to call out the human rights abuses in such states that prevent citizens from exercising their freedom of speech and expression. Football – and sport in general – holds a great deal of soft power as a political arena due to its popularity and reach. Those who seek to exploit such power at the expense of rights and freedoms should be condemned, not supported.
24 Apr 24 | Libya, News and features, United Kingdom
A new exhibition, The Storyteller, showcasing the work of acclaimed late photojournalist Tim Hetherington has opened at the Imperial War Museum in London, providing a fascinating insight into his experiences covering conflicts around the world.
The event marks the 13th anniversary of Hetherington’s tragic death. He was killed in Libya in 2011, fatally wounded by a mortar explosion while covering the country’s civil war for a project that would never be finished.
I was 12 years old when he died, still in school, and the thought of being a journalist hadn’t even entered my mind. As I attended the exhibition last week, I did so as the Tim Hetherington Fellow for Index on Censorship.
Set up by the Tim Hetherington Trust, the fellowship is a partnership between Liverpool John Moores University and Index on Censorship and allows one graduate to spend a year working on Index’s editorial team. I took up the role in September 2023 following the completion of my MA in Sports Journalism.
The Storyteller exhibition was the first chance I had to really delve into the life and work of the man responsible for the incredible opportunity I’d been granted. My interest in sport immediately drew me to Healing Sport, Hetherington’s first major project, which followed Liberian football team Millennium Stars as they toured the UK in 1999, during which he noted that “despite the social breakdown that transpired during the war, football always remained an important way to bring the youth together”.
This interest in the intersection between sport and conflict was the beginning of his exploration of the human experience of war, an interest which remained throughout his career and is clearly visible in his photo archive on display at the Imperial War Museum.
Hetherington’s biggest strength was his ability to find and capture humanity in times of violence. The exhibition states that he wished to “challenge assumptions about conflict and those caught up in it” and his photos do just that, primarily focusing on individuals rather than getting too drawn into the background context of war itself. In one striking collection called Sleeping Soldiers, he captures US soldiers at their most vulnerable: in bed, asleep.
Hetherington’s photos capture the human – many of his shots are focussed on combatants and soldiers bonding with each other rather than being actually engaged in combat. They highlight the importance of seeing the individual human beings impacted by conflict rather than getting lost in the broader actions of oppressive states.
These photographs serve as rich inspiration for up-and-coming journalists – not just in their composition and quality but in the motivations behind them. Hetherington was something of a pioneer in this sense – he questioned traditional methods of photography and preferred to spend great lengths of time with his subjects in order to document their character properly rather than parachuting in and out, as was the more common approach.
Hetherington often followed a ‘trojan horse’ method of photography whereby he focused on difficult topics such as war and conflict, which so often people are reluctant to observe or discuss, and repackaged them into a more digestible context, such as a sport. It’s a powerful idea and adds emotional weight to his projects. It’s difficult not to wonder how he would have documented modern conflicts had his life not been cut too short.
The exhibition at the Imperial War Museum does an impeccable job of placing Hetherington’s work in context by showcasing his photographs alongside a range of his personal belongings, including diary entries and camera equipment, giving a sense of the man behind the lens in a profession where they often go unnoticed.
As a Tim Hetherington Fellow, viewing his work is humbling. The commitment and determination that pushed him to the frontline in order to capture the humanity of those impacted by war was what made him such a great photojournalist, yet also cost him his life. It is up to those coming after him to take on the mantle.
Without his talents and bravery, I wouldn’t be a journalist – at least not at Index. It is strange to be in debt to someone you’ve never met, but the only way to try and repay it is by striving to produce quality journalism for a deserving cause – there’s no greater motivation for that than to do so in the name of a genuinely extraordinary photojournalist.
Storyteller: Photography by Tim Hetherington runs until 29 September 2024 at the Imperial War Museum, London.
29 Jan 24 | Israel, Middle East and North Africa, News and features, Palestine
When Turkish football team Antalyaspor faced Trabzonspor in a Super Lig match earlier this month, few could have predicted the fall-out that would follow off the pitch. Israeli winger Sagiv Jehezkel scored the equaliser for Antalyaspor in the second half, and in celebration he revealed a message written on his wristband that said: “100 days, 7-10”. The words referenced the length of time that Israeli hostages had been held by Hamas since the group launched an attack on Israel on the 7 October, killing an estimated 1,200 people.
In Turkey, the backlash was fierce. Jehezkel was arrested and detained in Antalya on the charge of “incitement to hate”. After being released, he was sacked by Antalyaspor and returned home to Israel, landing in Tel Aviv the next day.
According to local media, Jehezkel has stated that he did not mean to provoke such a storm. He said: “I am not a pro-war person. I want the war to end. That’s why I showed the sign.” Antalyaspor did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
He is not the only footballer to lose his club for voicing an opinion on the conflict. When Israel began their retaliatory bombardment of Gaza, which has so far reportedly killed more than 26,000 people, Dutch international Anwar El Ghazi posted a message of support for Palestine on his Instagram story. After a back and forth with his club – German side FSV Mainz 05 – El Ghazi made a further statement on social media announcing that he had no regrets over the now-deleted post and reiterating his argument that he stands “for humanity and the oppressed” and against “the killing of all innocent civilians in Palestine and Israel”. Mainz were unhappy with El Ghazi’s stance, calling his position on the conflict “unacceptable”. A few days later, his contract was terminated.
Upon losing his club, El Ghazi posted once more. “Stand for what is right, even if it means standing alone. The loss of my livelihood is nothing when compared to the hell being unleashed on the innocent and vulnerable in Gaza,” he said.
The player is now suing Mainz for wrongful termination of his contract, while the club is making a counter claim as they seek financial compensation to help fund his replacement. The final hearing is set to be held in June.
Mainz told Index they were unable to comment on the incident as legal proceedings are ongoing.
These two cases sum up the uncomfortable relationship sport has with politics and free speech, and how this has been exacerbated by the Israel-Gaza war. Due to the divisive nature of the conflict, sporting bodies are struggling to navigate the line between freedom of expression and the potential to incite hatred and in doing so have fallen into a worrying trend of censorship.
The reluctance or inability of those involved to comment on the incidents may also show the difficulties people have when talking about this topic, as they can’t, or won’t, speak up due to the potential backlash and further repercussions. This is fairly unsurprising given the experiences of those who have expressed an opinion on the conflict. In another case, footballer Karim Benzema was accused of having “notorious” links to Islamist group the Muslim Brotherhood by France’s Interior Minister, Gerald Darmanin. His crime? Posting a message of support for the inhabitants of Gaza on X (formerly Twitter). Benzema has filed for defamation against Darmanin; his lawyer Hugues Vigier told French news outlet RTL that the claims were “false” and accused the Interior Minister of “sowing division in France”.
It is not just players who are facing the threat of censorship. Many of football’s national governing bodies, including England’s Premier League and EFL, have also banned supporters from displaying Palestine or Israel flags during games. As a result, there have been a number of accusations levelled at English clubs such as Liverpool and Manchester United of censoring fans who display any show of support for the Palestinian cause by removing them from stadiums.
Other sports have also been caught up in the censorship storm. Former athlete Emilie Gomis, who clinched a silver medal in basketball for France at the London 2012 Olympics, recently stepped down from her role as an ambassador for the Paris 2024 Games after posting an anti-Israel video to her Instagram story. Elsewhere, in South Africa, cricketer David Teeger was stripped of his captaincy of the country’s under-19s side after dedicating an award he won at a Jewish community event to “the state of Israel and every single soldier fighting so that we can live and thrive in the diaspora”, in a decision described as a “sinister” and “discriminatory” by the South African Jewish Board of Deputies.
Another cricketer, Australia’s Usman Khawaja, was charged by the International Cricket Council (ICC) for wearing a black armband during a test match against Pakistan in support of those in Gaza. ICC regulations do not allow players to display “messages of political, religious or racial causes”, and the player had previously been warned by the governing body after wearing shoes with the messages “all lives are equal” and “freedom is a human right” written on them. Khawaja argues that it is not a political statement but a “humanitarian appeal”.
Further debate over the right to free expression in regard to the conflict is inevitable with the growing calls to ban Israel from competing in sporting events. One post on X by The Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel called for “pressure” to be put on sporting bodies to ban Israel from international tournaments and games “until Israel ends its grave violations of international law”. The statement was reposted by the BBC’s Gary Lineker, who later deleted it.
Despite cries to keep politics out of sport, it is not possible to separate the two. Sport does not exist in an apolitical vacuum, and is impacted even on the front lines; the Palestinian Football Association says 88 top-tier athletes have been killed by Israeli forces during their military bombardment, 67 of whom are footballers. Just this month it was reported that the coach of Palestine’s Olympic football team Hani Al-Masdar was killed in an Israeli airstrike.
The attempts by governing bodies in sport to prevent athletes and fans from expressing a view on the conflict, while not necessarily malicious, pose a serious risk to free speech. While the cases of Sagiv Jehezkel and Anwar El Ghazi are extreme, they are the product of sport’s increasingly heavy-handed approach to political censorship, which makes having an opinion on the war in Gaza increasingly difficult. For people to feel unable to wade into the issue in fear of backlash is cause for concern in itself. Despite a long history of athletes being involved in political activism, sport still hasn’t found a way to ensure free expression for all is upheld.
23 Nov 22 | Magazine, News and features, Volume 51.03 Autumn 2022, Volume 51.03 Autumn 2022
The football commentator’s well-worn cliché about the sport being a game of two halves usually refers to the action on the pitch. But in the build-up to the game between England and Iran at the 2022 FIFA World Cup earlier this week, it was the off-field actions of the teams which showed a divided response to events in the wider world.
Shortly before kick-off, it was decided by the English FA (among other European football governing bodies) that England’s Harry Kane would forgo wearing the OneLove captain’s armband, which displays a heart containing colours representative of all backgrounds and is part of a message promoting inclusion. The reason given by the FA was that “we can’t put our players in a position where they could face sporting sanctions including bookings.”
Then, just before the match, as the Iranian national anthem rang around the Khalifa International Stadium in Doha, the Iranian players remained silent. Referencing the now-months long protests in Iran, which are pushing for regime change after the death of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini in Tehran on 13 September 2022, Iranian captain Ehsan Hajsafi said that: “We have to accept the conditions in our country are not right. Our people are not happy. We are here but it does not mean we should not be their voice or must not respect them.”
The actions, or rather inactions, of the English FA and the Iranian footballers have had contrasting results. By aiming first but then relenting on the promise to have Kane wear the armband shows just what a failed empty gesture it was. A financial fine would have been accepted, but the fear of a single yellow card forced the FA’s hand (and that of other countries, such as Wales, Germany and the Netherlands). Were the teams and players ever really behind it if they could u-turn so quickly?
On the other hand, the silence of the Iranian footballers has shown the courage that a united action brings, not least given how much higher the risks – the repercussions the footballers may face on the return to their homeland, where they will have family and friends, are far more severe than a card brandished on the pitch.
That said we should be careful about where we lay blame in terms of not wearing the armband. It is understood that Kane still wanted to wear it, and even if he didn’t, is it fair to expect the England players to be politically active in the course of what essentially is their day job (as Julian Baggini argues in our last issue)?
The bigger fault lies squarely at the hands of FIFA for awarding the tournament to Qatar, as well as the governments and authorities around the world who have said very little about the country’s abuses since 2010. When news organisations have reported on abuses, especially on the Kafala system, which ensured an extremely cheap labour force was on hand to build the infrastructure for the World Cup, journalists were detained and threatened – again to very little public outcry. While minor changes have been made to improve the labour system, reports that at least 6,500 migrant workers still died since 2010 has again received far too little outrage.
Even during the immediate build up to, and including the tournament so far, FIFA appears happy to kowtow to Qatar’s last-minute demands. While the consumption of alcohol isn’t a free speech issue, FIFA’s agreement to Qatar’s last-minute ban on the sale of alcohol in stadiums is yet another sign that it is Qatar who are setting the rules. Also, despite assurances from FIFA, rainbow-coloured flags and attire were prohibited in spectator areas, as seen by the Welsh fans who had rainbow-coloured bucket fans confiscated before their opener against the USA. In a nation where homosexuality is still illegal these are hardly surprising actions but they show how arguments like “the World Cup will improve the rights situations in Qatar” was never a commitment taken seriously. The activist Peter Tatchell, an Index contributor who was himself detained following a protest to highlight LGBT rights in Qatar in October, puts it well: “#FIFA and #Qatar promised that LGBT+ fans & rainbow insignia would be allowed at #WorldCup. They have trashed that promise – and their reputations. But what did you expect from a sexist, homophobic & racist dictatorship?”
We at Index on Censorship love the fact that football is the world’s game, able to unite people across gender, race, religion and nationality. From Norway to Nigeria, it’s the universal language where a conversation about Manchester United or Lionel Messi can take place without knowledge of the native tongue. We have no issue with football and our Autumn issue showed its amazing power to transform lives. It’s for this reason that we remain angered that it is taking place in Qatar, who seem to be normalising their autocracy on a world stage. And it’s for this reason that we are angered that the simple threat of a yellow card has determined a retreat from taking a stand on such an important issue, even if that stand was small and largely symbolic. Iran might have lost against England on Monday but they proved to be the real winners when it came to courage and conviction.
