[TomGullen]

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.

[kepler1]

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.

Availability bias at its most obvious.

[Bhurn00985]

It could bring change and open people's eyes, but it can also be used to legitimize and normalize a regime that shouldn't.

[JumpCrisscross]

> it can also be used to legitimize and normalize a regime that shouldn't

Saudi Arabia and Qatar aren’t going anywhere if they can’t get World Cups.

[justusw]

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.