Interesting interview on the radio here in the UK a few weeks ago with a famous climber who went to Saudi Arabia I think to compete after much moral deliberation. He did say that every native he spoke to was very grateful for his attendance, people travelling and participating in these sorts of events is an effective way to bring change and open peoples eyes, mainly through his insistence there were female climbers competing also which wasn't in the original plan.
I'm in two minds about his story, it was a much smaller scale event and sounded well run. This World Cup though sounds flat out awful, mainly due to the throwaway slave labour in building the infrastructure and the rampant corruption from both sides. If the infrastructure wasn't built with slave labour, and if the country won the right to host fairly maybe I'd be OK with it.
Well, pardon me for pointing out, but he really should be talking to the people who aren't available to him to meet. The workers, slaves, people in jails. I'm sure they would have a slightly different opinion.
Bringing change by strengthening economic and cultural ties has been tried for a few decades now with mixed results. Be that the United States–China Relations Act of 2000 during the Clinton administration, or Angela Merkel cozying up with Russia during her chancellorship. In one case, it didn't keep China from abusing its Uyghur citizens, in the other case, it didn't keep Russia from invading Ukraine.
Registered as a charitable foundation (distinct from non-profits) with profits of $40M, and an endowment (distinct from cash reserves) of $100M.
In disputes, WMF has argued that it should not necessarily be liable for content written by 3rd-party contributors, which doesn't appear to be an entirely unreasonable position. It has lobbied for consumer rights in Copyright legislation hearings, and it has lobbied against governmental mass surveillance in which it was joined by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
It has also been criticised for some software projects being late, over budget, and not living up to expectations (so, par for the course for a typical software project?), or being developed with insufficient transparency. Which, OK, isn't great.
But you're comparing that to FIFA, whose officials have been repeatedly charged (with some guilty pleas, some convictions, and other cases ongoing) of multiple counts of political corruption, bribery, match fixing, racketeering and money laundering. Also, they lobby for exemptions to workers rights protections, and for special case tax exemptions beyond those normally afforded by it's non-profit status.
If you were trying to make the point that FIFA "isn't that bad, actually", I don't think comparing them to WMF does them any favors. (Or, it does make WMF look pretty good, in comparison.) Maybe try comparing FIFA to the IOC or the NRA if you want to make them look better next time.
FIFA only nominally is a private, officially non-profit (yet actually very much for-profit), entity.
They're embroiled in politics at the highest level because football / soccer arguably is the world's most popular (spectator) sport, which is something politicians gladly make use of to promote their own agendas and careers.
FIFA World Cups more often than not involve large public infrastructure programs.
FIFA and its high-ranking officials on the other hand profit in various ways, too, from "mere" tax holidays to downright corruption.
It is interesting to see all the discussion that follows regarding the term "barbaric". Is making homosexuality illegal barbaric? Is the US worse because they do $horrible_thing?
I think it may be useful to remember the origin of the word. Barbarians in ancient Greece were simply the non-Greek. People of different culture, speaking a different language. And of course, they were considered inferior and unrefined by the Greeks, who called themselves citizens.
For the Romans, Barbarians were those who were neither Roman nor Greek. It included Germans, Gauls, Persians,...
So I think it is useful to remember that in addition to the idea that "barbaric" means primitive, brutal or cruel, there is also that idea of looking down on cultures that are not our own.
Barbarism is subjective though. To me trying to control a woman's body is an instance of barbarism but I am yet to see the U.S. being reffered to as a barbaric country, so yeah let's hold our judgment.
Liberalism may even make you forget local laws that respect the cultural practices of others? Arrogant speech is no good. If someone like you reaches the top of politics, I think the world war will come soon, and you are more likely to be a fascist than others.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html