Revealed: Qatar's World Cup 'slaves' | Hacker News Reader

Revealed: Qatar's World Cup 'slaves'

theguardian.com

214 pointsyapcguy140 comments

Qatar's 2022 World Cup is a major controversy even outside of this. FIFA accepts World Cup bids mainly on the basis of bribery, but Qatar was a bridge too far. The country is so unsuitable to host a World Cup while simultaneously being so full of money that's being spent chasing prestige that it's completely blatant what really happened there.

The temperature is over 100 in the summer, so even with massive air conditioned stadiums they're not sure how to build yet, it's going to be a miserable experience for fans. If they move it to the winter, that means either January/February (which conflicts with the Winter Olympics and, in the US, the NFL postseason, leaving FOX aggrieved that their World Cup broadcasting rights are essentially worthless) or November/December (which conflicts with club football in England, particularly the traditional Boxing Day fixtures). Australia, one of the other countries that bid for 2022, is threatening to sue FIFA if they move the tournament to winter on the grounds that they bid for a summer tournament. The USA also had a very strong 2022 bid. Qatar, like Russia (who will host the 2018 World Cup) also has laws against homosexuality. The Russia bid, by the way, won against an England bid, and while it's more defensible than Qatar, it also smells of bribery and does more to motivate England in particular against FIFA's handling of the next two World Cup bidding processes.

With all that in context, this frankly isn't news. Qatar, like Dubai, is notorious for its treatment of migrant construction labor. But stories like this serve a PR purpose for the multitudes of parties aggrieved by FIFA, all of whom have money on the line.

Do the terms "winter" and "summer" in this context only refer to the northern hemisphere? Was Australia's "summer" bid to place the tournament in their winter? Presumably they have better weather in the winter.

Much of Australia is reasonably temperate. July in Sydney or Melbourne is in the 40s-50s Fahrenheit, which, while chilly, is both comparable to the climate for a large portion of the club season in Europe and vastly better than 100-ish for a sport that combines endurance running with interval sprints.

The previous World Cup in South Africa was also held during their winter. I believe the weather was similar to what Australia would have.

Yep, it is based on the northern hemisphere. Generally, the football season starts from Aug to May (in Europe) so the WC is usually held on June-July.

AFAIK, Australia's bid was for June-July 2022 and if FIFA changes the date, there is talk that Football Federation Australia will ask for recompense on their bid < http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/sep/17/world-cup-20... >.

It sounds like the season is not the reason for the complaint, but that the tournament would interfere with local competition.

So confused by this, why would they ask for their World Cup pitch costs as compensation? That ship has sailed.

The argument is that they bid for a World Cup scheduled for June and July of 2022, so if the World Cup is not in fact scheduled for those dates, it was fraudulent for FIFA to solicit bids under the premise that it is.

So they'd have to refund everybody by that logic.

I think this is new to many people and thus well worth reporting.

Also, homosexuality was decriminalised in Russia in 1993. The recent law bans distributing material about non-traditional sexual relations to minors. It does not make it illegal to be gay in Russia.

Contrast this to Qatar where it is illegal to be a male and homosexual - the punishment being a couple of years in prison and public lashing.

Yeah, it's not illegal, just totally unsafe due to vigilante mobs enforcing perceived societal values. TOTALLY different. </sarcasm>

Relative to each other, maybe it's better for gays in Russia than Qatar. But they're both pretty fucking awful compared to the rest of the world.

Yes, so much corruption went on with that particular round of World Cup bidding.

For example: http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment...

The disturbing thing is that everyone knew that was only the tip of the iceberg, but they still didn't even mention revoking the World Cup allocation and having a second vote. Just kicked a couple of members of the committee out and then went on with business as usual.

From the article:

• Evidence of forced labour on a huge World Cup infrastructure project.

• Some Nepalese men have alleged that they have not been paid for months and have had their salaries retained to stop them running away.

• Some workers on other sites say employers routinely confiscate passports and refuse to issue ID cards, in effect reducing them to the status of illegal aliens.

• Some labourers say they have been denied access to free drinking water in the desert heat.

• About 30 Nepalese sought refuge at their embassy in Doha to escape the brutal conditions of their employment.

I have to object to The Guardian's use of scare quotes in the title...

I have to object to The Guardian's use of scare quotes in the title.

You need to read more on the subject then. They have a very different definition of human rights in that part of the world. http://www.bing.com/search?q=maid+abuse+arab+countries

So did The South.

I don't care what they think, I consider it slavery, and so should everybody. Cultural relativism can go to hell when we are talking about fucking forced labor. I am not going to dampen my language just because they think forced labor is just fine, and neither should The Guardian.

Huh? You objected to Guardian using "scare quotes" or something and I told that this type of abuse happens there all the time. Human rights don't exist.In fact, several of them have been arrested for pulling the same crap in USA http://www.kbur.com/2013/09/20/saudi-princess-scheduled-to-b...

"Scare quotes are quotation marks placed around a word or phrase to imply that it may not signify its apparent meaning or that it is not necessarily the way the quoting person would express its concept. Thus, the quotes are used to establish a use–mention distinction, in a similar way as verbally prefixing a phrase with "so-called". When referred to as "scare quotes", the quotation marks are suggested to imply skepticism or disagreement with the quoted terminology."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes

Well, to be exact they are not real slaves http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery , at least in the way slavery existed in USA.

See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6446535

You can always narrow a concept to exclude members of a set if you are allowed to declare your preferred definition, but the general use of the word slave obviously includes forced labourers who are being denied wages and held against their will while being worked to death and denied water, to argue otherwise would seem to make an utter mockery of the term.

Sounds like modern day slavery to me

That is exactly what it is. The author and/or editor should have had a spine and made the headline: "Revealed: Qatar's World Cup slaves"

You're ascribing American notions of journalism to a British paper. They are not scare quotes.

Yes, our libel laws are much stronger. And scarier in scope.

Better to let the reader make up their own opinion rather than to push your own.

'Slave' is a loaded term, it's like calling someone a 'terrorist' or a 'murderer'.

In England that would read like hack journalism. It would cheapen the paper and make people doubt the story.

I now understand that they are not using scare quotes in this case (which is what my mistaken objection was to), but I don't think that would be hack journalism. They still don't quote like that for the phrase "sex slave" for instance.

I worked in Qatar for several months. It is modern day slavery precisely.

> This summer, Nepalese workers died at a rate of almost one a day in Qatar, many of them young men who had sudden heart attacks.

It was always a stupid idea to have footballers running around in temperatures of 100-120F, let alone manual laborers toiling over stadiums and roads.

FIFA are now looking to move the World Cup to the winter... except it would clash with the Winter Olympics and the busy schedule of domestic leagues.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/soccer/news/20130918/uefa-q...

> It was always a stupid idea to have footballers running around in temperatures >100F

I assume they could probably get some strong evaporation cooling from the well-hydrated field, but I am not really familiar with that sort of extreme climate.

They are/were looking at making artificial robotic clouds.

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/SPORT/03/25/qatar.flying.saucers...

> plans to develop giant artificial remotely controlled "clouds" made up of high-tech materials that will be positioned between the blistering sun and the still-to-be-built football stadiums in the Gulf emirate.

You probably stumbled over this article about scientists @ Qatar University developing artificial clouds: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/9435035.stm

edit: same as above post :)

I grew up in the Palm Springs area (summers regularly in the 100-125F range), and played soccer my entire life, through the summer. It's absolutely possible to do it, although it is not fun. The issue is that you have to hydrate completely differently, and to be fair, our substitution rules were different (unlimited subs, and you could be subbed back in), so players who have never played in that environment are at risk. Also, it gave us an extreme home field advantage whenever clubs from the California coast came into town to play.

I'm not sure it's helpful to call this actual slavery. Actual slavery is when human beings are legally owned by others.

This is not actual slavery, but it is atrocious working conditions and very serious human rights violations. The conditions may approach slave-like conditions, so there's good reason to use the word, but quotation marks are probably accurate. This is journalism, after all, not propaganda. (But, you definitely make a good point.)

The distinction is purely academic, and worthless for real-world use. Sex slaves in America or the UK are not legally owned, but they are nevertheless slaves as far as anybody sane-minded is concerned. You would not dream of referring to them as "Sex 'slaves'".

Particularly, The Guardian has not made this distinction in the past, search for "site:theguardian.com sex slaves"

(Further note that one of the methods of coercion being used in Qatar, taking the persons documentation and putting them in an immigration bind, is famous for being used in the sex slave industry)

I disagree with your assumption that sex slaves aren't by definition 'slaves' because they aren't legally owned. They are bought and sold (from what I've learned at the movies) so to me they are actual slaves.

From great-grandparent:

> Actual slavery is when human beings are legally owned by others.

He's not saying that sex slaves aren't by definition slaves; he's saying that legal ownership is irrelevant, because sex slaves are, in fact, slaves.

Okay, I somehow missed the comment he was replying to.

Note also that his emphasis was on legally, not on "owned": It's not legal to buy and sell people, therefore one cannot legally own slaves. The fact that people exchange money for them, and treat them as property, does not make it legal, but their treatment definitely makes it slavery.

Further, is the law what is written on a piece of paper, or what is tolerated or even encouraged in practice?

To be slightly punnish, this is not an academic exercise.

Chattel slavery requires ownership and is a specific form of slavery which was common in the US. Its manifestation requires slaves to be treated as property by the legal system.

Slavery has other forms, and being held in captivity for reasons other than legal punishment and forced to work generally is considered one of them.

It might very well be actual slavery. The "recruiters" are probably not employees of the company that commissions the labor, instead they are selling these men to companies who then "rent" them out.

This comes very close to a proprietary relationship, and it's even partly supported by the legal system which helps to keep the workers/slaves in their miserable "employment" relationship.

I don't think your point is clear here. It seems from comments that people think you think The Guardian is using "slave" incorrectly, while it seems like you object to the use of quotes around the word.

Your take on my objection is correct.

> I have to object to The Guardian's use of scare quotes in the title...

I don't think this is scare quotes, more like conservative British journalism that handles any story-relevant term delicately by emphasizing it's a quotation, and not their interpretation. I've seen it lots in the BBC: https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&authuser=0...

'emits flammable gas'

'played dead'

'bad habits'

Ah okay, that makes more sense. I tentatively revoke my criticism of the author and/or editor if that's what is going on here.

That seems to be the case here, although it's slightly more confusing (to me, an American reader) when it's only a single word in quotation marks.

You're absolutely correct -- "scare quotes" are an element of American English, not British English. In this context, they're simply indicative of the fact that somebody (not the paper) has called these workers "slaves".

Two countries divided by a common language, as they say. When I moved to the UK from America, this was admittedly one of the more confusing points of differentiation for me.

American newspaper headlines often use quotes in this way too. And those are often mistaken for scare quotes as well.

(American) Usually when I see it intended as a quote in the headline, the "says X named official" is either in the headline or in the lede, which will basically just be an expansion of the headline anyway. Often though, that's not the case, and there's palpable sarcasm associated with the quote. (I've come to dislike that style of writing stories.)

I associate that style of writing more with magazines than newspapers, though I suppose I don't read a lot of physical newspapers these days and maybe there is a plague of sarcastic headlines on news articles that I'm just not aware of.

I don't read printed newspapers, but do see it a lot online. I haven't noticed any particular sources which seem to be rabid abusers (other than the obvious, like rt and fox, which I ignore anyway).

>I have to object to The Guardian's use of scare quotes in the title...

I've noticed it's quite standard in English publications to use quotes around allegations, even if no one really believes the other side.

Not sure if this is just custom, or something to do with the stricter libel laws...

e: Here is a post on the language log that goes into the matter. (Make sure to read the comments.)

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1017

Comment from a headline writer: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1017#comment-18782

I lived and worked in Qatar and none of this is new to me. These people are treated in horrible conditions and I don't think Qataris have a second thought about it. They genuinely believe they are superior people and are permitted to do this to those lower than them (I am generalizing, yes, there are some good people there, but this is the most pervasive mindset. Just look up horror stories of how Filipina maids are treated in Qatari households. Rape victimes are at the Philippines embassy there every day trying to get help).

It was a really terrible place, don't be seduced by the media coverage gushing about their wealth. It's very easy to be

This is a government that charges fines from their red light cameras in excess of a year of a laborer's salary. They then require an "exit visa" to depart the country, and you can't get the exit visa until all your debts are paid, and your employer gives you one. I knew of Sri Lankan cab drivers who were trapped for years in Qatar trying to pay off their fines so they could leave.

Even as a professional American your employer can abuse you if they feel like it thanks to the "exit visa" requirement. Oh, you're quitting? Fine, I'll keep your last paycheck, here's your exit visa. Nobody should take a country that has an "exit visa" requirement seriously! I could not deal with the pressure of my freedom literally being in my employers hands. I did not last there very long in this environment, I am never going back to that hellhole.

Thank you for sharing your experience. I wonder how many expats would be in Qatar or Dubai in the first place if it weren't for the 0% income tax.

Speaking of Dubai...

"Norwegian woman sentenced to prison in Dubai for the crime of unlawful sex with her alleged rapist"

"Australian Alicia Gali reported being brutally raped while working at a hotel in the Unite Arab Emirates 2008, spent eight months in a fetid and overcrowded jail cell after (she says) being tricked into signing a confession."

http://www.newstatesman.com/middle-east/2013/07/shocking-cas...

This is one of the biggest reasons I can't wait for alternative energy sources to become more prevalent. The Middle East will sink back into irrelevance.

Is there a term for these types of countries that are not very developed, but have a lot of wealth (through oil, or other means)?

I don't think its scare tactics at all. All of middle east is like this. Saudi Arabia, Dubai everywhere they need workers for construction or such. They "import" workers from Bangaldesh, India, Pakistan etc, take their passport away and make them live and work in horrible conditions. Many people die or commit suicide too.

None of this is new. There have been plenty of articles describing how expat laborers are treated in some of these Middle Eastern countries. I have family who live and work in Dubai (very near Qatar) and Ive visited a few times. Here are some of the things I've heard :

- Workers having their passports taken away so they can't leave. This is very common.

- Not being paid wages they were promised.

- Beatings and general mistreatment.

- Being made to work in extreme temperatures.

- Authorities under-reporting weather temperatures so workers cannot stop working.

- Getting thrown out of the country and/or being threatened if any complaints are made.

- Housemaids from India,Sri Lanka,Phillipines,Bangladesh etc being assaulted, beaten and sexually molested. This is shockingly common.

- Large numbers of women (girls) from Slavic and East Asian countries being imported/traded/bartered as sex workers.

- Basically - if you're brown-skinned and not a local you're like a 3rd class citizen.

If you've ever wondered to what degree bribes influence World Cup selection, to find a worse location than Qatar you would almost have to put the World Cup in Antarctica or under the ocean.

By just about every measure they considered in every official analysis, Qatar was rated as the worst choice.

Total attendance in South Africa 2010 was 3.1 million. Qatar has a population of 1.9 million.

http://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/1kf33g/epl_ceo_joins...

They also promised some magical stadium air conditioning tech because the regular environmental of Qatar would make having a big outdoor tournament impossible. Big surprise, relying on not-yet-invented tech is looking like it won't work and they are already saying they may have to move to the coolest part of the year.

Just one more specific example: FIFA requires there to be 6 different host cities, while Qatar only had three. They got around this by saying they would 'build' four new cities in time for the World Cup.

It's a travesty.

As someone who spent 4 months in Qatar several years ago, I am unfortunately confirm the pathetic treatment of foreign physical laborers there.

As an example, one thing all the malls there do is "family day": the idea in theory being that it's then to make Muslim women feel more comfortable. Turns out in practice though, a decently dressed Arab male can go in, as can a white male. "Family day" is really "no laborers at the mall day", and it just so happens to be on the one day most workers get off

A very similar article was written 4 years ago in The Independent about Dubai and as far as I know nothing has changed. Definitely worth a read to find out about a very similar culture of modern day slavery

'The Dark Side of Dubai': http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/johann-hari...

Some expats have raised doubts over this article: http://www.thenational.ae/business/media/expat-takes-uk-jour...

It pains me that the U.S. has absolutely no balls to stand up to the Middle Eastern sheikdoms. And American businessmen are slobbering like puppies trying to get a slice of that oil capital. It's all quite disgusting really.

Why would the US be involved in this issue? I would think that it's FIFA's fault for choosing the location.

IMO you are spot on that its FIFA's fault for choosing the location. The Cup will be moved to the winter and will affect European football due to league play.

The US was runner up and should have been awarded the World Cup in 2022. The 1994 Cup in the US was one of the most, it not the most, profitable World Cup.

The infrastructure is in place in the US to host the World Cup.

Can you imagine what political ramifications there would be if the World Cup hosting rights were taking away from Qatar and awarded to the US.

Do you have sources for it being so profitable? For who? Everything I understand about events like the World Cup and Olympics is that they are massively wasteful, corrupt, publicly funded economic disasters. Is that just the Olympics?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_the_FIFA_World_Cup

It was one of the most profitable World Cups, take into account that it was in 1994.

The most comprehensive source (and most recent, and only source about the economics I can still find) to this page suggests that it was an economic catastrophe that "showed a cumulative loss of $5.6 billion to $9 billion."[1] It's the same argument politicians use to swindle taxpayers into publicly financing stadiums for billionaire sports owners.

[1] http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/07/opinion/la-oe-coates...

> It pains me that the U.S. has absolutely no balls to stand up to the Middle Eastern sheikdoms.

It's not that they haven't the balls, it's that the USG doesn't care about middle eastern (or anywhere else) countries having a poor human rights record, so long as those countries support US foreign policy.

So for example, the USG has been a lot more vocal about human rights abuses in Syria and Iran (enemies of USA) than Bahrain and Saudi (allies).

Do you want the US to invade Qatar? Maybe establish a puppet government? Or just invade, leave, and see what happens?

> Do you want the US to invade Qatar?

I don't want anyone to invade anywhere.

> I don't want anyone to invade anywhere.

So what do you want to happen?

FIFA could tell Qatar that they're not getting the World Cup unless they clean up their act.

On a wider note, Western countries could refuse to do business with companies and countries involved in serious human rights violations.

So, do you want a replay of Iraq or a replay of Vietnam?

Iran. Crippling economic sanctions and concerted isolation.

> Iran. Crippling economic sanctions and concerted isolation.

And decades later, Iran still hasn't changed.

I don't care if they ever change, I just think it debases us to cozy up to them.

Qatar is right next to the UAE, both geographically and in terms of their treatment of foreign laborers. When somebody I know mentions they are considering working or vacationing in Dubai, I make a point of mentioning how those gleaming towers were built. Now I get to complain about Qatar whenever the world cup comes up in conversation. Gee, that ought to make me popular!

The UAE and Qatar are both countries awash in oil money who are trying to buy their way out of their uncivilized reputations. Surprisingly, it's working. People are attracted by the gleaming steel and concrete that makes places like Dubai seem like they're from the future. Working there (in white collar jobs) also appeals because the average engineer can afford servants! Although it may feel boorish, pointing out the true nature of the foundations these places are built upon is the only way to prevent more cities just like them from popping up wherever there is money right next to poverty.

I'm not sure why you're being downvoted. What you say is a 100% true. After watching how a laborer was treated in Dubai, I refuse to fly Emirates, Qatar, Etihad or any middle eastern airline. And I hope I never have to set foot in these atrocious places for the rest of my life.

People from the Emirates, Etihad, or Qatar, and those who have vacationed/worked there also visit this board, and are no doubt not happy about this being pointed out. Even just visiting a place makes you feel connected to it, and angry when something like this is pointed out. Like I said, I don't expect saying things like this to make me popular. Still, the more people are willing to be unpopular, the more chance there is for change.

As somebody who spent a few years in Saudi Arabia (as well as visiting some of its fellow oil rich neighbors)...I can confirm this problem which is endemic to all rich Middle Eastern countries. As an American of Indian ethnicity (I can speak Hindi), I was able to see how people from these countries treat folks from the Indian subcontinent.

They're all basically nouveau-riche. They bring in what is slave labor/indentured servitude from poorer countries like Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Nepal, the Philippines, etc. They clean the toilets, they serve the food at McDonalds, they build every house and skyscraper, the work the oil fields...in other words all the dirty jobs. Likewise people from western countries are brought into do the white collar work -- doctors, engineers, architects, etc....though they're having a blast.

I would say the situation is analogous to illegal immigrants from Mexico in the US -- but believe it or not we're way way way way way nicer to our illegal immigrants than these countries are to their legal immigrants! They live in terrible and barbaric conditions very similar to those described in the article. What makes it all so horrid is the disparity in wealth between the way they live and the way the elites live. If you're in Dubai, you can go snowboarding on a ski slope inside a shopping mall -- built by some guy who's in the outskirts of the city, sleeping in a hot tin can with 12 other guys, a broken AC, completely sore body, and sun burnt skin. You'll sometimes see Arab guys screaming at/assaulting these people at stores, shops, or taxis as if they're feudal lords talking to their peasants.

My father calls these immigrants heroes. They take shit (physically, verbally, mentally) you and I could not imagine just to send back the equivalent of $100-$200 a month to their families back home. That small amount of money enables them to educate their kids, feed their family, build homes, businesses, etc. They dream of the day they get to return home and finally see their families again.

Terrible. This reminds me of what was going on in Saipan 20 years ago. A paradise of conservative/libertarian economic governance that Jack Abramoff and Tom Delay worked so hard to protect from the horrors of organized labor and worker's rights.

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/18/world/made-usa-hard-labor-...

hold up. in no way is/was Saipan a paradise of libertarian economic governance. From your article: "If we complain, then our bosses would send us back to China and take away all of our money. Our families need the money."

No libertarian I know, me included, would object to (rather, we would support) massive penalties for any entity that engaged in such behavior.

Additionally, Jack Abramoff and Tom Delay are the exact opposite of anything/anyone a libertarian would endorse.

I really encourage you to learn about Libertarianism because if you really believe Saipan 20 years ago was a "paradise of libertarian economic governance" you are farrrr off the mark.

I think the "paradise of libertarian economic governance" was sarcasm

seemed to me like he was suggesting the form of governance in place in Saipan 20 years ago was in some way consistent with Libertarian ideals - it was not.

And how do you imagine these "massive penalties" would be enforced? Perhaps by government regulation? Can't recall the last time I heard a Libertarian talk about a lack of that, or say anything favorable about labor unions. I think a lot of Libertarians think of Libertarianism as economic Conservatism, except it all works out magically because Free Markets and legal marijuana! Both sides tend to have an misplaced trust in the free markets to solve problems, and have a knee-jerk reaction against any increase in the size of Big Government, new regulations or labor union-strengthening measures.

I've been both a conservative and libertarian myself in the past, and I would agree that these outcomes are not considered desirable by adherents of those viewpoints, but unfortunately this sort of thing is very often the result of the policies and philosophy they thought would make everyone's lives better.

My two cents. Or if I'm more honest, Thomas Frank's two cents. http://www.amazon.com/The-Wrecking-Crew-Conservatives-Govern... Good read, that.

"Free Markets and legal marijuana!" You're clearly not interested in having a civil discussion. If I were as childish as you, I would respond that you believe in "Socialism and the Drug war!" (both proven failures)

I am only replying for the sake of people who may not have been introduced to Libertarianism.

Libertarianism is absolutely reliant on property rights and contract rights. Both of which must be enforced by a government and were violated in the example above. The huge penalties would be levied by a court.

The regulation that most Libertarians oppose is more akin to the current situation. There are vast regulations on Wall Street (and resources expended putting them in place) but when rampant fraud becomes evident not a single prosecution is made. In the meantime, the barrier to entry is raised and competition is stifled with further meaningless regulation as the Government sells it self to special interests (while claiming "reform"). Other examples: illegal wars, illegal torture, illegal surveillance. No one held accountable.

Your post amounts to "you're against meaningless/hurtful regulation? anarchy doesnt work!!!"

Not 'slaves' but serfs (no quotes necessary). Since we're moving back to feudalism, we should start getting it right.

Some perspective from Nepali side, even though I don't reside there now I go back quite often. Airport in Nepal has separate line/queue for emigration for these workers going to arab countries like Qatar. Every day 100s of such workers emigrate out of Nepal, all carrying dream of earning a decent living and sending money back for family. As much as it pains me to say this, some of those workers have no better option in Nepal. In my village itself, I've seen hoards of supposed lower caste people make a better living for themselves because of earnings/money sent back by their sons/husbands from Qatar and other countries. They were neglected by upper caste/government before and now they are neglected by another country. Problem lies with Nepal, the government more than anything. Everyone who aspires to go abroad thinks or believes it won't happen to them, but they don't know the bad conditions waiting for them until they leave. And as the article states, in most cases they take loans, sell farmland(if they've any) and build up a sizable debt before setting food abroad. What can be done to help the situation? Fixing problems from Nepali side aside, it would help if Fifa would strip Qatar of the WC all together, but not likely as they were bribed in first place anyways. It would also help if bigger entities(US, UK) put pressure on Fifa in the regards.

Agreed. FIFA is unlikely to suddenly change though: it, like the numerous ultra-conservative non-state totalitarian oil-fuelled sheikhdom-hells of the Middle East, is like the rest of the mass media entertainment industry merely a symptom of the real problem, which is global capitalism. The US and Europe benefit too much to make any concrete change. They're all hypocrites. We have to make change ourselves by supporting one another.

As referenced to in the article and highly relevant, the Kafala System [1] which has roots in Islamic adoption jurisprudence [2].

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafala_system

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_adoptional_jurisprudenc...

Wow, only 6% of the labor force is made up of locals. Basically the Qataris sit back and let workers from the rest of the world do 94% of the country's work. Which begs the question, what exactly do Qataris do all day?!

>"Under the state-run kafala sponsorship system, workers are also unable to change jobs or leave the country without their sponsor company's permission." (Guardian)

> About 1.2 million foreign workers in Qatar, mostly from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Indonesia and the Philippines, make up 94 percent of the labor force. There are nearly five foreign workers for each Qatari citizen, mostly housemaids and low-skilled workers. (Link 1 above)

As is the case in all the Persian Gulf oil states. You didn’t think the sheikhs themselves would get their hands dirty, did you? They’ve got Pakistanis for that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking_in_Pakistan#A...

Pretty much. Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Sri Lankans and many, many Indians. The proximity to the subcontinent makes it easy to bring in the labor force. Growing up in the middle east, I knew people whose passports were taken by their sponsor so that they couldn't leave the country. House maids are very badly treated in particular (physical abuse sometimes leading to death).

I want to give some input from the other side here.

I was born in Pakistan. I got out of there at age 12. It took my family about 8 years to get all the paperwork in order to leave the place.

I vividly remember, when I was about 8, a lady coming to our house to sell some pomegranates. It's what a lot of poor people do there to get by, kind of like this: http://transworldexpedition.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/D.... They'd knock the door of each house and try to make a sale. My mom often bought their stuff, and would sometime offer them some work for a small pay (wash the dishes, 20 rupees; mop the floor, 10 rupees). One of the ladies that my mom used to do business with frequently came to our house one day, just begging and begging to borrow (I think) some 12,000 rupees (about $100 USD). Why did she need that money? Her husband had found an opportunity to get out of the country... she spoke very happily about this as if it was finally a blessing she'd been praying for. She said her husband would go there to make money, and send it back so she could more comfortably take care of her 5 kids. This was while my family was in the process of getting the papers in order to flee Pakistan for America, we'd been working with 2 lawyers, we knew how to play the game and we had the money to play it. I remember thinking then in my naivete, wow, so poor people also have the opportunity to leave that hellhole for a better life.

Of course now I'm here in America, and I never heard of her again. But I can make a good guess what happened. Her husband probably saved up to go to Qatar (or some other middle-eastern region where this happens), paid for the ticket himself, had his passport confiscated when he got there and was basically trapped. It sends a chill down my spine to think how the lady fared in her life, without a husband, without the small income stream that she once had, with no word back from him -- only uncertainty. I knew where she lived, her place of residence, it kind of like this: http://i4.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article391293.ece/ALTERNATES..., with basically nothing inside besides a wooden frame for sleeping and little possessions beside stuff picked up from trash.

What separated her or her children from me, was that I was born a good kilometer north of where she lived, where the slums were. I was born to a father with a masters in chemical engineering, who had the means, resources, and the knowledge to know he had to get out of there if he wanted a better life for himself or his children.

I'm left now with the depressing, heavy, and intimate knowledge that there are still so many people there -- and elsewhere in India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal etc. that are recipients of this cruel fate. Their sons and daughters are sold off as slaves and/or prostitutes, and they can't even do anything about it. The misery those people suffer is simply unimaginable to us.

Right on. Things are bad for people in much of the world, not just South Asia. A Nepali girl who is a friend of a friend of ours is basically homeless, penniless and stranded after a romantic overseas trip ended up with her being mistreated by her boyfriend. She is staying with us for the next week until a flight home. In the same week, a young boy we know's father was attacked by thieves with knives who slit his throat and hands to make off with minor cash. He was so deeply psychologically shocked that he has turned so far on to hard drugs he is completely ignoring his own family. After seeing the financial and emotional stress caring for the boy is placing on other people I promised to go and try to discuss him out of it: that's crisis #2 to solve this afternoon! The developing world sure is amazing, but poverty and pain can be hard to escape.

Thanks for helping these folks out, you're making the world a better place by helping them in their time of misfortune.

I wondef it it is a public figure how much money do workers send home from middle east? If it's big you can expect at least some expats to fare OK.

> Which begs the question, what exactly do Qataris do all day?!

Get paid by the government.

> Which begs the question, what exactly do Qataris do all day?!

Raping or torturing their house maids/slaves.

Even though these two share the same Arabic noun: 'kafala', they actually refers to two totally different things. One refers to the migrant laborers monitoring system, while the other refers to the Islamic view of child adoption. Don't mix them up. The 'kafala' system has no relation (or share roots) with the meaning of 'kafala' in Islam. It's nothing but a name of the legislation of migrant laborers.

That's incorrect. The word kafalah roughly translates to sponsorship. Migrant worker sponsorship and adoption have nothing to do with each other.

One of the appalling details is that these abuses to the individual don't make a dent in anyone's profit. Really, how many workers do you have to deny water to, in order to make up for even one worker's salary?

I allege that this is actually a symptom of corruption. Starting with poor labor laws at the top, down to poor enforcement of probably already poor corporate policies on the ground.

I don't really believe that this situation is even to the best interest of the companies (excepting maybe the slave driving contractors on the bottom).

If FIFA had any moral fortitude then they would cancel the event - if independent parties can verify the allegations and there is any evidence that the government have not been acting to the best of it's abilities to prevent such actions.

It seems FIFA care nothing about football except that it's an opportunity for the rich to line their pockets.

If FIFA don't act then governments in countries where FIFA operate should be shutting them down and disbarring all directors for supporting wide-scale illegal and immoral activity against human beings.

Even one confirmed case of a worker being unfairly denied their entire wage (without the government moving to correct the injustice), never mind being denied water or freedom from physical abuse or having their passport unjustly confiscated and they should just revert to the runner up country.

That would be fair play.¹

1 - http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/socialresponsibility/fairplay/...

I'm glad this is getting attention. I was in Germany in July and watched a ~1h documentary about the working conditions there. Confirming what is written in the Guardian. The image I saw in the documentary were extreme. No access to clean water, no access to working bath rooms, no paying. They're also lured into coming there being promised a better life and once they're there they realize it but it's too late.

There has also been a report on it in March from Spiegel:

http://www.spiegel.de/sport/fussball/wm-2022-internationaler...

I usually dont' quote BILD, but they say the workers get paid ~0.78 Cent (EUR) an hour:

http://www.bild.de/sport/fussball/wm/arbeiter-werden-wie-skl...

No air conditioning when it's often over 50 deg. celsius (~122 Fahrenheit). This could explain the many hear failures noted in the article.

I am appalled by the conditions but I don't think any of these articles is going to change a single thing in Qatar. I believe it will continue happening in Qatar. Only way to stop it is educate people from poorer countries to not go there no matter how enticing it seems(just like a mirage).

And to stop hosting international events and locating foreign-owned businesses there.

Once those people from poorer countries are educated and stop going there, they'll be replaced by people from an even poorer country.

In the early 80s, there were a lot of Korean workers in the Middle East. As the economy in Korea boomed and they had less of a reason to go the Middle East, they were replaced by Indians. As the Indian economy boomed in the 90s/00s, they were replaced by Nepalis, Bangladeshis and others.

How can someone enjoy a soccer match knowing it is happening on a field stained by the blood of modern-day slaves.

I WON'T. WILL YOU?

Can't imagine to walk in their shoes. This is a crime and serious human right violation. Wonder if embassy of small country not able to take action against contractors?

There is always the possibility of a fourth Punic war...

"Revealed?"

Where have you been? How is this news?

The richest people are refusing to pay for labor, enslaving human beings instead - insanity.

Why hasn't Nepal rescued its country men from this?

no one cares, its a corrupt government where everyone is looking out to make money at every level.

This is shocking... how? The arab empire was built on the slave trade. The whole of Dubai exists solely due to external workers, from engineers to the bricklayers.

This should not shock anyone.

Uh, it's still wrong. That's the point.

Something that is shocking is not necessarily surprising. "Shocking" in this case is more about the visceral reaction of disgust it causes.

The whole of Dubai exists solely due to external workers, from engineers to the bricklayers.

External workers are fine since workers are different from slaves or "slaves". If they paid me $150K a year, I'd go there and lay bricks myself and for $1000 a month they'd get probably a billion applications. What they did is they screwed the poor Indians, Bangladeshis, Filipinos etc, once they got there.

The only shocking thing is how we in the US put up with this behavior from governments we send billions in aid to every year. You'd think we'd have the balls to suspend some their aid and have them put an end to this type of abuse.

How is that the US' responsibility? It has nothing to do with balls at all, either.

If you think the US has any interest in exerting its economic or military power in the interest of morals and ethics then I've got a bridge to sell you.

The aid is to get their govt support against war on terror and access to resources no?

Which really shows that we have our priorities set straight too. They are not our people slaving away there, so we turn a blind eye.

The US sends billions in aid to Qatar and Dubai? I think what you mean is that these countries buy billions of $ of US weapons every year.

Hey, different strokes for different folks.

As someone who lives in the Emirates, I have to object to the allegation of "slaves." This is not slavery. It's indentured servitude, which is definitely distressing but not quite of the same character.

Most importantly, in the talks I've had with workers, the vast majority of them still are happy to have these jobs despite the conditions. They're paid an order of magnitude more than they make in Nepal and if you go to poor Nepalese villages you'll see entire families building new houses based on earnings from sons who went to work in the gulf.

Finally, it's important to note that there's pretty drastic variation in how workers are treated in different firms. Certainly none have ideal working conditions, but the majority are legal and passable. It's the truly horrible ones which actually trigger government investigations (and, sadly enough, many of the worst firms are actually run by overseas businessmen.).

>This is not slavery. It's indentured servitude

Considering wages are being held and passports are taken, I'd say the use of the word slave is justified.

>Most importantly, in the talks I've had with workers, the vast majority of them still are happy to have these jobs despite the conditions.

Survivor bias. The ones who haven't been killed or run away like working there (or are too scared to tell you otherwise).

> Considering wages are being held and passports are taken, I'd say the use of the word slave is justified.

Slavery has a very unambiguous definition -- people are treated as property where they're traded and sold, and forced to work. If passports are being collected and passed around in a slavery market then I'd agree with you, but as it stands there is no such evidence of that.

...as it stands there is no such evidence of that.

There have certainly been allegations of it, including on this comment page. Why should we assume the best possible interpretation of how Qatari projects might be staffed with manual labor? Based on the little I've learned, any assumptions I make are more likely to go in the other direction.

Personally I refuse to entertain conjecture and hearsay, so I have no interest in making any assumptions or interpretations.

Maybe I'm dense, but your comment above reads to me as if you're assuming: "nothing to see here, move along!"

Indentured servitude is debt bondage made explicitly so (contractually). When a worker says, "we were compelled to come just to make a living, but we've had no luck", that seems like they've been tricked into working as indentured servants without prior knowledge.

I think pretty much all of them are well aware that the cost of flying them to the Gulf far exceeds their savings and they won't have the funds to fly back of their own accord before their contract is up. It's not one of these trafficking situations where they've been told they've been found a nice domestic service job in the capital and they subsequently end up in an underground brothel in another country.

They have good reason to expect to have access to food and their post-deduction wages though.

> It's not one of these trafficking situations where they've been told they've been found a nice domestic service job in the capital and they subsequently end up in an underground brothel in another country.

Exactly. Honestly, it's very telling that the vast majority of migrant workers in the gulf are men. They're doing hard manual labor, in admittedly poor conditions, but that is by and large what they signed up for.

> They have good reason to expect to have access to food and their post-deduction wages though.

Agreed. And that's why the instances where they don't even receive that are so alarming and do trigger government investigations.

Not at all. Almost none of them have enough to pay their recruitment or travel fees, so they fully understand that for a time all their wages will go towards that.

I fail to see how retaining pay until a hiring debt is paid off isn't the very definition of indentured servitude.

The article is talking about their not being paid, which means we're back into slavery again. Indentured servitude is also banned in the civilised world, so that's probably not a good way to defend yourself.

Do you think they'd be paid in full at the end of their period? From the pattern of treatment described in the article, I'd expect it's common for them to be left unpaid or underpaid at the close.

> I'd expect it's common for them to be left unpaid or underpaid at the close.

Unpaid, no. It's extremely rare for an employer to not pay anything ever. Underpaid, definitely—between extra "fees" and deductions, many workers end up with less than they expected (but still more than they'd make back home).

For a mere 20 year old, you sure speak with advanced lashings of ponce and confidence on subjects of which you know not.

> For a mere 20 year old, you sure speak with advanced lashings of ponce and confidence on subjects of which you know not.

Having lived in the gulf and thoroughly read the human rights reports in the region, I'd wager I know a lot more about the situation than most HN commenters. But sure, go ahead an attack my age. Everyone knows ad hominem attacks are the best kind.

This seems off topic to me and I don't feel like it follows the guidelines.

http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

The thing I that bothers me is I get sucked into these off topics sensational stories.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com