Qatar to ban beer at World Cup stadiums two days before tournament starts(cnbc.com)
cnbc.com
Qatar to ban beer at World Cup stadiums two days before tournament starts
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/18/qatar-to-reportedly-ban-beer-at-world-cup-in-dramatic-reversal.html
62 comments
It's almost touching if they were serious. In southern Germany there's a dish called Maultaschen (similar to Ravioli) that used to go by the name "Herrgottsbscheißerle" (swabian dialect, literally "little god cheaters"). During the easter week it was prohibited to eat meat before easter sunday, so they put the meat inside the dumplings, so god could not see it.
Maybe that was a joke? I personally know non-orthodox Jews that eat pork or other non-kosher foods, and non-orthodox Catholics who eat meat during Easter. I suppose there are non-orthodox Muslims too.
"Allah don't see it there" is quite known as an excuse to anything what otherwise is forbidden or frown upon ni Muslim world.
I can see that, even if it's weird because Allah, like Yahweh, is presented as infinitely omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent.
In my country (Spain) it's not been allowed to drink alcohol in stadiums for a long time ago. I think it's normal to ban alcohol from these kinds of places to avoid fights and problems.
There are a lot of negative things to say about the US, but I've always been amazed at how US sporting events involve a lot of alcohol but rarely have significant conflicts. This is in stark contrast to EU/UK football events.
Some years ago I was visiting Germany for the first time, and while walking the city I passed an area with 20+ police vans and dozens of officers armed with assault rifles.
I paused and politely asked one of the cops if there was something going on... or why was there such heavily armed police presence? He casually said, "oh there's a football match here this afternoon".
Some years ago I was visiting Germany for the first time, and while walking the city I passed an area with 20+ police vans and dozens of officers armed with assault rifles.
I paused and politely asked one of the cops if there was something going on... or why was there such heavily armed police presence? He casually said, "oh there's a football match here this afternoon".
> [..] I was visiting Germany [and saw] dozens of officers armed with assault rifles.
A bit of nitpick but I’ve never seen German police with assault rifles (unlike the US, France, and Belgium). There were more likely MP5 machine pistols which are quite commonly carried in sensitive areas or around major events as a “show of force”.
A bit of nitpick but I’ve never seen German police with assault rifles (unlike the US, France, and Belgium). There were more likely MP5 machine pistols which are quite commonly carried in sensitive areas or around major events as a “show of force”.
I did see the German police with assault rifles during a protest when I lived in Frankfurt. They may have just been rubber bullets or not loaded etc. I never stopped to ask because it was a little scary coming from a country where you just don't see guns.
That being said, I have no idea about how they police football games, so you may well be right!
That being said, I have no idea about how they police football games, so you may well be right!
Yeah, I'm not a gun guy. Looking up MP5, I see that it looks like what they were carrying. To me that's not any kind of "pistol", but I don't know the correct terms.
Dude the word assault rifle barely means anything. Mp5s are fully automatic weapons. I would say they're quite capable of assault. And they're rifled firearms, so they're rifles.
It’s just a classification.
Adding to that, these rifles or machine pistols weren't used to protect against hooligans, but against the risk of islamic terorism.
Hooligans can be bad, but they are not gunshot-bad. Riot gear typically suffices. And most hooligan action is anyways happening outside the stadiums nowadays.
Hooligans can be bad, but they are not gunshot-bad. Riot gear typically suffices. And most hooligan action is anyways happening outside the stadiums nowadays.
You have a point, but do remember that a properly kitted MP5 can give an untrained eye the impression of an assault rifle.
Generally, I assume the public thinks that anything physically bigger than a pistol and smaller than a rifle is an "assault rifle".
Generally, I assume the public thinks that anything physically bigger than a pistol and smaller than a rifle is an "assault rifle".
PSA: Assault rifle isn’t a real thing, it’s a political term that depends on the cosmetic qualities of the firearm that anyone with some basic tools could change in 5-10 minutes, like the style of the hand grip. It has nothing to do with caliber or lethality of the weapon.
If you wanted, you could own an MP5 that would be categorized as an assault rifle, to do so you would need to make it LESS lethal, by converting it from a fully automatic weapon into a semi-automatic, and would need to put a longer barrel on it. Such versions are sold in the US.
If you wanted, you could own an MP5 that would be categorized as an assault rifle, to do so you would need to make it LESS lethal, by converting it from a fully automatic weapon into a semi-automatic, and would need to put a longer barrel on it. Such versions are sold in the US.
Your heart is in the right place, but you are incorrect. The made up political term in the US is "assault weapon", created when the "Assault Weapons Ban of 1994" was enacted into law.
"Assault Rifle" is very much an actual term for an actual classification of military firearm, and is a literal translation of the German term to English from the original assault rifle, the Sturmgewehr 44 created by the Germans during WW2. Moreover, the reason an MP5 is called an MP5, is that the MP stands for Maschinenpistole which literally translates to "machine pistol", and is the next closest type of weapon in German parlance to an assault rifle. In fact, the StG 44 derived from the MP44, which fired a smaller cartridge.
Mechanically, both assault rifles and machine pistols operate similarly, the primary difference is the cartridge. Assault rifles fire intermediate rifle cartridges (smaller than a battle rifle cartridge) [e.g. 5.56 NATO (.223 Remington)], and machine pistols fire pistol cartridges [e.g. 9MM NATO]. Machine pistols in the US are classified as sub-machine guns. The history of that is equally interesting, but irrelevant to this sub-thread.
There are no civilian owned Assault Rifles manufactured after 1986 in the US, except when held by a Class 3 FFL (federally licenses firearms dealer), or purchased by a police department or specially licenses corporate security organizations (think PMCs). They are considered to be exclusively military weapons that do not pass the "sporting purpose" test enacted in the Firearm Owner's Protection Act of 1986 (ironically named, since it didn't do anything of the sort). This is especially ironic because the entire reason shortened barrel shotguns being illegal in the National Firearms Act of 1934 was upheld in the US Supreme Court (Miller v United States) is due to it not having a military purpose, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment being that US citizens have an innate right to possess, train with, and utilize military equivalent arms. So taken together, in the US a firearm must have a "sporting purpose" and also be military equivalent in order to be legal... luckily that contradiction does not completely eliminate most firearms.
"Assault Rifle" is very much an actual term for an actual classification of military firearm, and is a literal translation of the German term to English from the original assault rifle, the Sturmgewehr 44 created by the Germans during WW2. Moreover, the reason an MP5 is called an MP5, is that the MP stands for Maschinenpistole which literally translates to "machine pistol", and is the next closest type of weapon in German parlance to an assault rifle. In fact, the StG 44 derived from the MP44, which fired a smaller cartridge.
Mechanically, both assault rifles and machine pistols operate similarly, the primary difference is the cartridge. Assault rifles fire intermediate rifle cartridges (smaller than a battle rifle cartridge) [e.g. 5.56 NATO (.223 Remington)], and machine pistols fire pistol cartridges [e.g. 9MM NATO]. Machine pistols in the US are classified as sub-machine guns. The history of that is equally interesting, but irrelevant to this sub-thread.
There are no civilian owned Assault Rifles manufactured after 1986 in the US, except when held by a Class 3 FFL (federally licenses firearms dealer), or purchased by a police department or specially licenses corporate security organizations (think PMCs). They are considered to be exclusively military weapons that do not pass the "sporting purpose" test enacted in the Firearm Owner's Protection Act of 1986 (ironically named, since it didn't do anything of the sort). This is especially ironic because the entire reason shortened barrel shotguns being illegal in the National Firearms Act of 1934 was upheld in the US Supreme Court (Miller v United States) is due to it not having a military purpose, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment being that US citizens have an innate right to possess, train with, and utilize military equivalent arms. So taken together, in the US a firearm must have a "sporting purpose" and also be military equivalent in order to be legal... luckily that contradiction does not completely eliminate most firearms.
> I've always been amazed at how US sporting events involve a lot of alcohol but rarely have significant conflicts
I think there's a different cultural attitude towards fighting here. Fighting with fists is something boys do that they grow out of. Of course American culture has a macho aspect that see violence as a fundamental masculine skill, but even people who buy heavily into it don't have an idea of fighting as good clean fun. Fights where nobody gets really hurt are kid stuff, because men should be more capable than that. Serious violence will likely involve guns, which only makes sense for extremely desperate people and/or criminals, so if you're not a hardened criminal, living in wretched poverty, or a failed man-child, you look silly initiating physical violence. Though of course you watch it constantly on TV and in movies and constantly worry about your (assured in-)ability to turn into a bad-ass on a moment's notice if necessary, because it's fully expected of you.
And of course popular culture is incredibly nostalgic for the days of casual fighting in bars, because it's exciting entertainment and a great way to build characters that people want to identify with.
I think there's a different cultural attitude towards fighting here. Fighting with fists is something boys do that they grow out of. Of course American culture has a macho aspect that see violence as a fundamental masculine skill, but even people who buy heavily into it don't have an idea of fighting as good clean fun. Fights where nobody gets really hurt are kid stuff, because men should be more capable than that. Serious violence will likely involve guns, which only makes sense for extremely desperate people and/or criminals, so if you're not a hardened criminal, living in wretched poverty, or a failed man-child, you look silly initiating physical violence. Though of course you watch it constantly on TV and in movies and constantly worry about your (assured in-)ability to turn into a bad-ass on a moment's notice if necessary, because it's fully expected of you.
And of course popular culture is incredibly nostalgic for the days of casual fighting in bars, because it's exciting entertainment and a great way to build characters that people want to identify with.
> I've always been amazed at how US sporting events involve a lot of alcohol but rarely have significant conflicts.
I suspect it's something to do with association football itself.
I believe baseball is traditionally a working-class entertainment; but the fans will clap and cheer the opposing team. NFL football is a chance for everyone to get together and eat hotdogs. People go to matches where they don't support either team.
Football/soccer fans only go to matches where their team is playing. There are two matches - one on the field, and one between the fans (which crowd can sing or shout loudest). Certainly, the crowd at UK football matches is much louder and more excited than the crowd at baseball and NFL matches (omitting superbowl).
I don't know anything about college football.
I suspect it's something to do with association football itself.
I believe baseball is traditionally a working-class entertainment; but the fans will clap and cheer the opposing team. NFL football is a chance for everyone to get together and eat hotdogs. People go to matches where they don't support either team.
Football/soccer fans only go to matches where their team is playing. There are two matches - one on the field, and one between the fans (which crowd can sing or shout loudest). Certainly, the crowd at UK football matches is much louder and more excited than the crowd at baseball and NFL matches (omitting superbowl).
I don't know anything about college football.
They are rare, but the do happen. When they do they tend to be spontaneous riots and not between organized groups of fans. The famous $.10 beer night riot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Cent_Beer_Night
It might help that most beer sold in US stadiums tends to be mass produced beer with low alcohol content (Coors Light is only %4.2). Still, it's nice to have something that's not a heavy beer in the summer.
It might help that most beer sold in US stadiums tends to be mass produced beer with low alcohol content (Coors Light is only %4.2). Still, it's nice to have something that's not a heavy beer in the summer.
The only time I've seen a battalion of riot police deployed in Amsterdam was during euro/world cup football tournaments when bars were showing England matches.
> I paused and politely asked one of the cops if there was something going on... or why was there such heavily armed police presence? He casually said, "oh there's a football match here this afternoon".
Did you really ask them? Riot police usually don't go out of their way to casually interact with members of the public.
Did you really ask them? Riot police usually don't go out of their way to casually interact with members of the public.
It’s insane. Trains to games have the fans segregated from the normal population (a temporary extra walking lane), and police with machine pistols make sure everyone stays where they are supposed to.
I think it’s mostly an issue with the "Ultras", but as a non-fan I don’t know much about it.
I think it’s mostly an issue with the "Ultras", but as a non-fan I don’t know much about it.
Australia has a similar confusion about Euro sporting culture. Australian Football (AFL) is a more violent sport and alcohol is allowed in the stadiums yet to Europeans it is a strikingly family friendly affair with children present and no (major) patron violence.
To the UK yobbos it's half the sport. They go to a match to watch the game, then they pick a fight. It's how they satisfy their blood lust. It's a tradition. I think their right to procreate should be withdrawn.
One difference between US/Euro sporting events is it's seen more of a family thing in the US. You take your kids to see the big game, enjoy the atmosphere. In contrast to Europe, at times it seems kinda do-or-die for the team you put your faith in. One close comparison is maybe college sports in the US
Do you typically have opposing teams in a stadium in EU/UK?
In NA it's typically all home team crowd, either you're all happy together celebrating the win or all sad together mourning a loss.
In NA it's typically all home team crowd, either you're all happy together celebrating the win or all sad together mourning a loss.
Do you typically have opposing teams in a stadium in EU/UK?
Always. For most teams and countries basically all your away games are less than an 8 hour drive/train ride away (and in many cases less than 2-3 hours) so many people make the trip. You also always have the hardcore fans that will rent a bus or two and drive it literally across Europe to see their team play.
Always. For most teams and countries basically all your away games are less than an 8 hour drive/train ride away (and in many cases less than 2-3 hours) so many people make the trip. You also always have the hardcore fans that will rent a bus or two and drive it literally across Europe to see their team play.
That make sense then. In north America more than half of the games are on the road hundreds of miles away. Typically it's the home crowd that shows up.
My theory is that free health care in the UK makes the drunken population more likely to fight each other. Or possibly that picking a fight in the USA could get you shot.
Sure, but they don’t ban alcohol in the entire city/country before and during the game.
It is good that Qatar trouble hits FIFA where it hurts - sponsors.
Brazil did the same in 2014, and somehow FIFA made them change. Overpriced beer makes a lot of money.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-16624823
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-16624823
Ha. I remember going to the world cup in rugby in france and drinking about 5 pints during the game for an extortionate price (10 euro each or somesuch). Only found out after the game they were non-alcoholic. I think it is illegal in france to serve alcohol in stadiums?
Didn’t you notice something seemed … off?
Probably had 5 real pints on the way to the game so it's understandable not to notice the lack of alcohol. :)
Classic Male Pregame - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Je1nn2-y3cw
Some beer is so bad, maybe you don't notice? I imagine the only way Budweiser can still sell beer is by buying exclusive vendor rights at sporting events.
NA beer is great in those situations. You get the socialization and trick your mind but no risk of being drunk or hungover.
I don't drink alcohol, but surely selling tickets saying beer will be available in stadiums then reversing is grounds for refund of tickets and perhaps more.
Qatar building stadiums at the cost of 6500 workers lives seems pale in comparison.
Wait what? 6000? I hadn't heard that and did a little searching. This fact check here seems to debunk that number. Though I don't have time to investigate further, and any lives lost is terribly sad.
https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-how-many-people-have-died-f...
https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-how-many-people-have-died-f...
Who would someone complain to for that refund? FIFA?
I'd suggest, in this case, a deity or their local representative.
Or perhaps more productively, file a chargeback. I hope you used a credit card.
Yes this.
Do the tickets actually say that?
Whoever awarded the bid really needs to go to jail.
Good.
Drinking in public events is always annoying.
Drinking in public events is always annoying.
Then don't do it!
Which prince did anheuser-busch forget to bribe?
I read that Bud Zero will be available. I'm not sure whether that adds insult to injury or not.
Ironically, the frog prince.
LAME
lmao can't make this up
This is like when I was hitchhiking in the Balkans and I saw turkish truck drivers in a car park drinking under their truck. Like literally laying down on the tarmac under the truck. I didn't understand it and asked some "it's okay, Allah don't see it there"