Ahead of the World Cup, brands weigh cost of partnership with Qatar

For Gary Lineker, a starring role in Qatar’s big show was not an option.

Of course, he had already presented a World Cup draw before. And, as a former top scorer of the tournament who now works as a popular television presenter, he has an ongoing professional relationship with the tournament’s organizer, FIFA. But running the glamorous event in Doha last month that defined this year’s World Cup matches in Qatar – a host choice he routinely criticizes – was not something he could consider, Lineker decided.

Then, in a conversation with FIFA president Gianni Infantino, Lineker said no.

Lineker’s reluctance to present the draw – which has left FIFA struggling to find a replacement – is just one recent example of the line that famous athletes and sponsors are having to take when it comes to the Qatar World Cup, which from the start has been involved in controversies and complaints about the country’s treatment of migrant workers and the LGBQTIA+ community. His decision came as several companies, and even federations from some participating countries, are taking steps to distance their brands from the host country, even though they have paid millions of dollars to partner with the world’s most prominent sporting event.

Qatar has long dismissed perceptions of the country that it considers inaccurate or, at best, outdated, trying to explain that as the physical appearance of the country has changed, so have its protections for workers. But examples of abusive conduct and mistreatment stubbornly persist and continue to make headlines in the media, particularly in Europe, where the Qatar World Cup is a source of protest and draws criticism from those associated with it.

Alarmed, some companies that were supposed to leverage the biggest event in the world’s most popular sport chose to walk away. For example, ING Group, the large international banking and financial services group that sponsors the Netherlands and Belgium national teams, decided not to leverage these relationships during the event. The company said it will not accept any tournament ticket allocations or engage in any World Cup-related promotions, a spokesperson told The New York Times.

“Given the discussion and concerns surrounding the human rights situation of the tournament’s infrastructure, we find it inappropriate,” the spokesperson said. Instead, ING said it will focus its efforts on the European Women’s Football Championship to be held in England this summer.

Several other partners from the Dutch and Belgian teams have also issued statements outlining their plans to bypass what under normal circumstances would be a great marketing platform. GLS, the remittance service provider that sponsors the Belgium team, told the Times that while it has supported the Red Devils since 2011 and continues to do so, it will not accept promotional tickets for customers or engage in advertising campaigns in Qatar due to to human rights concerns.

But Carrefour, a French supermarket chain with stores in Qatar and which also sponsors the Belgian national team, has issued a robust response to claims that it would also join what appears to be a collective boycott of the World Cup. “Carrefour and its subsidiaries are not involved in any kind of boycott,” the company told the Times in a statement that labeled any claim it would participate in “fake news.”

Even some of the competing teams, however, are treading lightly. US Soccer had internal discussions about the messages it can provide players when they face inevitable questions about human rights issues, and Germany wore shirts with the slogan “human rights” ahead of a World Cup qualifying match at last year.

And after Denmark secured qualification last year, its football federation announced that two of its sponsors, the national lottery Danske Spil and a prominent bank, Arbejdernes Landsbank, had agreed to give up the space they bought in the team’s training kit. to be occupied by human rights messages during the World Cup. (Arbejdernes Landsbank later ended its sponsorship, a decision it said was for unrelated reasons.)

None of the team’s sponsors, according to the Danish federation, would participate in any commercial activity in Qatar, “so that participation in the World Cup is mainly about sporting participation, and not to promote the events of the Cup organisers”.

For others, however, the rich payouts offered may be too large to refuse. For years, Qatar has signed some of the biggest sponsorship deals in the sport, and that only increased as the World Cup approached. His biggest catch to date was David Beckham, the former England star who, like Lineker, was present in the auditorium when Qatar was chosen as host for 2022.

Qatar’s multimillion-dollar deal with Beckham, now also a sports team owner and investor whose celebrity transcends football, goes beyond the World Cup. In many ways, it’s a deal for the former England captain to endorse Qatar itself. This has led some people close to Beckham to express doubts about the nature of the deal.

“It’s a business to promote and support the country and what they are doing,” said one person with knowledge of the agreement.

Beckham has not spoken publicly about what motivated him to sign with Qatar, countries he has visited frequently since accepting a deal more than 18 months ago. His spokesman did not respond to a request for comment.

Beckham’s relationship with Qatar could raise questions for one of his other partners, sportswear maker Adidas. The company provided few details on how it would activate its relationship with Beckham for the Qatar World Cup, saying only that he “is a valued and long-time member of the Adidas family, and our partnership will continue as such.”