There was a time when convincing a country to host sporting events was a challenge for the International Federation of Association Football (FIFA) or the International Olympic Committee (IOC). Today, being selected as the host country of a sporting mega-event has become a remarkable achievement… and sought after.
In addition to the possible economic benefits of the event, the organizing country also benefits from a means of building or strengthening its position on the international scene. Indeed, organizing the Soccer World Cup or the Olympic Games is a golden opportunity to shine. To do this, all the necessary means and efforts are mobilized (financial, human, technological, etc.) to ensure the success of the event, the size of which will contribute to the power of the country.
A (re)gilded image
Recent years have been marked by the awarding of sporting mega-events to emerging powers or to countries seeking to improve their image, as evidenced by the 2008 and 2022 Olympics in China, those of 2014 in Russia and those of 2016. in Brazil. The same is true for the Soccer World Cup which was held in 2014 in Brazil, in 2018 in Russia and which is currently taking place in Qatar. These countries have in common a desire to assert themselves on the world stage. Hosting a planetary sporting event then becomes an essential vector of communication, which underlines their attractiveness. A kind of obligatory “rite of passage”.
China uses sport – among other things – to overcome its “image deficit” while Qatar includes it in its policy of “nation branding”, “national marketing”, in order to make it the architect of the positive image of the country.
For this small Gulf country, organizing the World Cup allows to present a story mixing modernity and tradition. In this perspective, the structures of the eight stadiums built for the event, as well as their strategic distribution on the territory, are of capital importance. As an example, Al-Thumana Stadium depicts a ghafiya, a traditional headgear worn by men in some Arab and Muslim countries. The avant-garde Iconic Stadium, whose images have been seen around the world, was erected in the futuristic-looking city of Lusail, a historically significant place for the Al-Thani dynasty. It is no coincidence that this building, oscillating between past and future, was chosen to host the ceremony and the opening match, and to host the final this Sunday.
The emirate did not hesitate to spend more than 220 billion dollars to organize the event, which makes this World Cup, by far, the most expensive in history (the previous record being held by Brazil for the 2014 World Cup at a cost of “only” 15 billion). These expenses are part of a more global project: the “Qatar National Vision 2030”. Construction of stadiums, an airport, commissioning of new means of transport, expansion of accommodation… the Qataris want to become a “sports nation” and bet on sports diplomacy, despite the initial weakness of their football culture.
The flip side
However, the increased media coverage to which the host country of the World Cup is exposed is a double-edged sword. We have already seen this with the case of China, which suffered considerable criticism with regard to the question of human rights and the treatment of minorities during the organization of the Summer Olympics in 2008. To these accusations were added environmental and health controversies when the country hosted the Winter Games in February 2022.
From the preparation phase to the event itself, the eyes of the world are riveted on the host country, which is then constantly confronted with possible international criticism.
At the heart of media attention, Qatar has thus seen its flaws and weaknesses exhumed. If a country in the shadows can easily gloss over some of its actions, it becomes more difficult in the spotlight. At first, during the preparation of the event, the media coverage of the ecological aberrations and the non-respect of human rights surrounding the organization of the World Cup went beyond the sporting issues. And today, although the sporting spectacle has taken over, these concerns remain in the background. Finally, the risk for the host country is that the event produces the opposite effect to that expected, i.e. it generates a soft disempowerment. This means that the country’s reputation would be tarnished rather than promoted, and the country could then suffer a decline in its position on the international scene.
Countries wishing to host a sporting mega-event should be ready to live with possible international disapproval, be prepared to have to respond to it, or better still, do their best not to provoke it. A lesson to be learned for the next candidates?