How FIFA silenced the LGBTQIA+ armband campaign at the World Cup

It was a few hours before the opening match of the soccer World Cup when the leaders of a group of European federations arrived at the luxurious Fairmont Hotel for a meeting. The five-star property, converted into the tournament headquarters for FIFA’s (International Football Federation) board, was an unlikely setting for a fight. But with the games about to start, it would have to do.

Until then, it had been months since the federations and FIFA representatives met to discuss a plan by the group of national teams to wear multicolored armbands with the message “One Love” during the matches of the tournament in Qatar. FIFA was not happy with the idea, but the teams – which included Germany, England, the Netherlands and Belgium – felt that an unspoken peace had been reached: teams would wear the armbands, and FIFA would turn a blind eye, then quietly fine them later for break your rules about uniforms.

In a conference room at the Fairmont on Nov. 20, however, everything changed. With the room’s wide windows and the panoramic view of the Persian Gulf at her back, Fatma Samoura, FIFA’s second executive, told the federations that their armbands would not only be against the tournament’s uniform regulations but also considered a provocation to Qatar, the host of the tournament, and to other Islamic nations and African countries. They would not be allowed, Samoura said.

Europeans were surprised.

The 24 hours that followed – a flurry of meetings and threats, raised voices and provocations – are just a flashback to the World Cup final on Sunday (18). FIFA did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the discussions; this report is based on interviews with several participants in the conversations, many of whom requested anonymity because they were not permitted to report private discussions to the media.

The “One Love” campaign, started in the Netherlands three years ago as an effort to promote inclusion, has turned into one of the biggest controversies of the early days of the World Cup. More than a month after its sudden end, the episode remains instructive as an extraordinarily forceful demonstration of the power FIFA wields over its member associations; the influence it can have to force compliance in disagreements; and how a social justice campaign scheduled for the biggest stage in sports can be silenced in 24 hours.

Some of the European nations that played in the World Cup – England, Holland, Denmark, Germany, Belgium, Wales and Switzerland – and two countries that did not qualify, Norway and Sweden, found common cause months earlier. Hit by mounting criticism of the Qatar World Cup, they planned to highlight their message of inclusivity during tournament matches. The campaign came after the host country faced a decade of scrutiny over its human rights record, treatment of migrant workers and criminalization of homosexuality.

Behind the scenes, as the tournament approached, the federations sought clarification from FIFA on what it could do when captains took to the field with an armband that had not been approved by the organization.

At a meeting on Oct. 12 at FIFA headquarters in Switzerland, team representatives met senior FIFA officials, including its deputy general secretary, Alasdair Bell, and Andreas Graf, head of the human rights department. Officials spoke about labor reforms in Qatar, the possibility of a compensation scheme for migrant workers and concerns about the safety of gay fans attending the World Cup. The final item on the agenda was the “One Love” armband.

“We expressed firmly that we would wear the armband – that for us there was no discussion about that,” Gijs de Jong, general secretary of the Dutch football federation, told the New York Times. The group told FIFA officials that their federations were willing to accept fines for breaching World Cup uniform regulations, which they understood to be the maximum punishment FIFA could impose for such a breach.

FIFA officials responded that they would discuss the armband plan and get back to them with a response. But they didn’t answer. Questions from the media were also up in the air.

De Jong said he took FIFA’s silence as a sign that while football’s governing body was clearly not happy with the plan, it might look the other way long enough for the World Cup to take place.

“I thought that in this case they wouldn’t ban it, but they wouldn’t give permission either – they would just let it go,” de Jong said. “I thought this would happen, and maybe we’d get a ticket.”

Everything changed when the teams arrived in Doha, in the days leading up to the tournament.

Some of the teams held events with migrant workers at their training bases, and at press conferences their captains were asked about their plan to wear the armbands. Some recommitted themselves to the idea. But French captain Hugo Lloris, who wore the “One Love” armband during games in Europe, said he would not participate in the World Cup campaign, citing respect for Qatar, the conservative Muslim nation and the first Arab host country for the Cup.

Despite Lloris’ feelings, nothing seemed to have changed for the other teams. They remained firm in their convictions at the time, although they were alarmed by a speech by FIFA president Gianni Infantino who criticized European attitudes towards Qatar on the eve of the opening game.

The European representatives had decided to let his words slide when they walked into a meeting room at the Fairmont. Sitting around a table so large that an executive in attendance compared it to those worn by Russian President Vladimir Putin, they had more conversations about issues of rights and the armband, which by then already had a competitor. Days before, Fifa had surprisingly announced a campaign for its own armbands: its versions carried slogans such as “No discrimination”, “Save the planet” and “Education for all”.

The European delegation praised the campaign — which was co-sponsored by the UN (United Nations) — but reiterated that its captains would wear “One Love” armbands, as planned. Once again, the representatives of the federation left with the feeling that there was an unspoken commitment.

“We’ll wear the armband, we’ll recognize your campaign, and you’ll go easy on the disciplinary procedures,” de Jong said when asked to describe the mood after the meeting ended. “Apply fines after the Cup.”

Within 24 hours, however, the mood and tone suddenly changed. After a summit of FIFA’s 211 member associations led by Infantino, the European teams and representatives of Norway and Sweden, two countries that did not qualify for the Cup but spoke out about the World Cup in Qatar, were conducted more once to the conference room. There, Samoura, a former UN official from Senegal who had not been present at the previous meeting, took a more forceful tone.

Surprising those present, she warned that the punishments they would face would be immediate and targeted at the players involved. Voices rose. According to a European official who was present at the meeting, Samoura, during a coffee break, even suggested to a delegate from Belgium that, if his team continued to promote the “One Love” armband, it could encourage African teams to use versions protesting past colonial abuses. FIFA, asked directly about the incident, said it would not comment on details of the meeting.

As the meeting wore on for two hours, approaching the time when everyone in attendance needed to go to the Al Bayt stadium for the opening game of the World Cup, a question ended up being asked to FIFA: what will it do if the teams go ahead? A FIFA official suggested the match commissioner could remove the armband from any captain wearing it. “We said, ‘Good luck with Virgil van Dijk,'” said de Jong, referring to the 1.95m Dutch captain.

Still, when the meeting ended, sporting punishments became, for the first time, a clear possibility.

That night, in the stadium, as Qatar lost to Ecuador in their opener, the members of the European group gathered, preparing for the worst. They quickly came to an agreement that if there was a punishment for their players – FIFA was threatening to yellow card any captain who violated uniform rules – they would not put their top stars in a situation where they had to make one. choice.

But FIFA still hadn’t given any certainty, and by then the World Cup had begun. Three of the European teams would play the next day, and the rest on subsequent days. On Monday, the morning after the opening game, the first of those teams, England, welcomed a high-level delegation from FIFA, including competitions director Manolo Zubiria and head of media relations Bryan Swanson , at your hotel in Al Wakrah, Qatar.

There, FIFA increased the pressure. According to de Jong, who said he was called out immediately by FA chief Mark Bullingham, FIFA made it clear that the yellow card threat was only a minimal sanction. “They hinted that it could be a one-game suspension for one player,” de Jong said.

The federations agreed that FIFA’s threat was “unprecedented” and would likely be overturned in a legal challenge. But they didn’t have time. “What are you going to do on the field?” said de Jong. “Send your lawyer there?”

The campaign failed. The teams announced that they had asked their captains not to wear the armbands. The players complied, and the tournament continued.

All teams eventually took the field without incident. When many of its captains wore armbands, it was with FIFA-approved messages.