How the US Has - Mostly - Avoided the Dark Side of the World Cup

Although I'm a big sports fan, I have long been critical of the Olympics and the World Cup for a variety of abuses, such as massive stadium subsidies that victimize taxpayers, forcible displacement of people in order to build stadiums, and providing a propaganda showcase for repressive authoritarian regimes, such as Russia and Qatar (hosts of the last two World Cups). Fortunately, this year's World Cup - co-hosted by Canada, the US, and Mexico - has mostly avoided these problems, at least when it comes to the United States. Though not quite entirely, as we shall see.  The key factors are that the US host cities used existing stadiums, and that strong protections for freedom of speech largely foreclosed the censorship and repression common in authoritarian host states.

Back in 2022, at the time of the last World Cup hosted by Qatar, I outlined several problems that needed to be fixed in order to avoid various evils associated with past World Cups and Olympic games. Let's see how the US has done on each one:

1. No public subsidies. Let the games be funded purely by private organizations and sponsors, as was largely the case for the successful 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles. That way, no one has to pay for the games, except those who profit from them and the audience that voluntarily chooses to watch.

This has largely been achieved, primarily because US host cities have used existing stadiums, obviating the need to build new ones. This eliminates by far the biggest cause of the World Cup's exploitation of taxpayers. There have still been some public expenditures on things like traffic management and security. But protecting people against crime and terrorism, and managing public infrastructure are basic functions of government that the state provides for events of all kinds. There is no good reason to exclude major sporting events. Anarchists (including libertarian ones) can consistently condemn such spending. But that goes to philosophical issues that go far beyond sports events.

2. No forcible displacement of residents, private businesses, or civil society organizations. We can and should hold sports events without kicking innocent people out of their homes.

As far as I can tell, this has been entirely avoided. And it's in sharp contrast to the record of many past Olympic and World Cup hosts, such as Brazil and China.

3. No hosting rights for authoritarian human rights violators. There are plenty of possible Olympic venues that aren't controlled by likes of Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, or the Emir of Qatar. Denying these types of rulers hosting rights won't fundamentally alter their regimes. But it will at least damage their image and deny them propaganda victories.

Even under Trump, the US is nowhere near as bad as Russia, China, or Qatar. The fact that I regularly denounce Trump and even helped litigate a case against him in the Supreme Court, with little fear of reprisal, is one small but telling indication of the difference. That said, Trump's cruel and discriminatory immigration policies (which victimize US citizens as well as recent migrants), and his assaults on freedom of speech make the contrast smaller than it should be.

So far, however, Trump does not seem to have derived much, if any, propaganda benefit from hosting the Cup. That may be in part because his attention is focused elsewhere.

4. There must be full freedom of speech at all competition venues and in all interactions between competitors, media, and the local population. At the very least, athletes, journalists, and spectators should be entirely free to criticize the host government and its policies (or any other government for that matter).

This standard has also largely been met, thanks in large part to the First Amendment and its strong protection for speech. The city of Seattle deserves credit for refusing the Egyptian and Iranian governments' demands to bar local Pride celebrations, which happened to coincide with the match between these two countries' teams. This is a sharp contrast with Russia's and Qatar's authoritarian restrictions on pro-LGBT speech.

The Trump Administration's speech-based deportations and exclusions of immigrants and visitors have cast a pall over this issue. But courts have so far largely ruled against Trump on these issues. And it does not appear that any World Cup players, fans, or officials have been deported or barred on this basis (though some fans and a referee have been subjected to other arbitrary visa restrictions).

5. There must be no "public health" measures blocking normal human interaction between athletes, members of the media, and residents of the host city. Such measures defeat the whole point of having the competition in a particular country in the first place.

This was a serious problem at the 2022 Beijing Olympics. It has not been an issue at the 2026 World Cup.

I will add that the World Cup has generated many heart-warming moments of Americans welcoming foreign players and fans, which has helped the world to see that most Americans do not share the xenophobic nationalism of the Trump Administration.

In sum, the US record on the types of issues and injustices that have marred past Olympics and World Cups is by no means perfect. And the structural corruption of FIFA (the organization running the Cup) remains. The organization has a history of fleecing taxpayers, conniving in forcible displacement of residents to build stadiums, and kowtowing to authoritarians. There is no guarantee that it won't repeat past abuses during future Cups. The same goes for the International Olympic Committee, which runs the Olympics.

But the current World Cup has been much better in crucial respects than those held by other recent hosts, such as Brazil, Russia, and Qatar. We should learn from that experience, and liberal democracies should pressure FIFA and the IOC to adopt systematic reforms that will permanently preclude these abuses.

The post How the US Has - Mostly - Avoided the Dark Side of the World Cup appeared first on Reason.com.