FIFA released a report on the legacy of the 2022 World Cup last week, ignoring its committee’s recommendation for compensation for human losses during construction in Qatar.
Instead, the football governing body unveiled a £39.4 million “legacy fund,” which excludes compensation.
Notably, the organisation’s sub-committee on human rights and social responsibility concluded that FIFA has a ‘responsibility’ to contribute to the compensation of workers affected by the preparation and delivery of the tournament. However, they have rejected this recommendation.
“There are workers who have contributed to the resounding success of the World Cup… who have not yet benefited from compensation or adequate redress,” the report stated. The committee recommends FIFA “dedicate all or part of the 2022 World Cup Legacy Fund to further strengthening the legacy of the competition for migrant workers”.
In 2021, it was revealed that 6,500 migrant workers from India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka had died in Qatar since it won the bid to host the tournament in 2010. The Qatari government argued that not all the deaths were linked to work on World Cup-related projects.
Labour reforms and benefits for workers were introduced in 2017. The ongoing controversy over the record revenue generated – around £6 billion (€7.249m) – has always been at odds with FIFA’s failure to implement a £350 million (€422.8m) compensation fund for the families of injured or deceased workers, instead committing to the Legacy Fund.
Amnesty International said, “It is no mystery why FIFA has tried to keep this independent report hidden for so long; it clearly concludes that the organisation has a responsibility to ensure remedies, including compensation, for hundreds of thousands of workers who have suffered abuses related to the 2022 World Cup.
In response, FIFA said, “All reports and recommendations have been considered in a comprehensive review by the FIFA administration and relevant bodies. While not all recommendations could be implemented, practical and effective elements were retained. It should be noted that the study did not specifically constitute a legal assessment of the obligation to remedy.” –Insidethegames.biz
