In 1868, Britain, BahrainAn island country in the Middle East with a population of 1.7 million. and the ruling house of QatarA small country on the Arabian Peninsula, bordering Saudi Arabia. Like its larger neighbour, it has experienced rapid economic development but maintained strict conservative religious codes. signed an agreement that secured Qatar's independence. No-one then could have imagined that this tiny desert state would, 154 years later, be hosting one of the world's biggest sporting events.

But, after all, before the announcement was made in 2010, most people would not have guessed that the World Cup would end up being hosted in a country where temperatures regularly soar above 40C and where critics say human rights often mean nothing.

Male homosexuality is illegal in Qatar. Gay people can be fined and imprisoned for up to three years. Even campaigning for LGBT+ rights is illegal.

Many football teams are concerned about the idea of playing in such a repressivePreventing personal freedom. state. That is why, in September, ten countries, including England and Wales, announced a campaign called OneLove. They said their team captains would wear an armband with a multicoloured heart to show their commitment to LGBT+ rights.

Yet now most of these teams have called off their campaign. They say FIFA threatened to give their captains yellow cards if they went ahead with it - meaning they might not see out the whole tournament.

The decision has caused a storm of outrage. Fans have accused FIFA and the teams of giving in to hate and bigotryPrejudice towards a certain group, and an unwillingness to change your mind. .

But others can see FIFA's point of view. They point out that the organisation has to be fair to all of its members.

If the USA were hosting the World Cup this year, for example, it is difficult to imagine them taking kindly to players from other countries protesting against the decision to overturn Roe v WadeA ruling of the Supreme Court in 1973 that determined that the right to have an abortion up to the third trimester was constitutionally protected and so could not be limited by any state.. Or if it were in the UK, would the government accept other teams wearing badges condemning its treatment of refugees?

It is fairer, they argue, for FIFA to ban any kind of political statement on the football pitch and insist that players respect all local laws.

Still others think the teams are missing the bigger picture. Last year it was estimated that more than 6,500 migrant workers died building the stadium complex for this World Cup.¹

And Qatar has been accused of bribing FIFA officials to host the World Cup. The whole tournament, critics say, has been poisoned with dirty money and human rights abuses. They think other teams should have boycotted it from the very start.

Yes: Players must be allowed to speak their minds, and LGBT+ fans deserve to see the players they admire sticking up for their right to exist.

No: If FIFA lets players defy the law in one country, they risk looking hypocritical and unfair if they try to prevent it in other countries. They cannot make an exception, even for a good cause like this one.

Or... Players cannot have it both ways: if they wanted to protest against the Qatari regime, they should never have agreed to take part in the first place.