Business
Sale of beer with alcohol banned at World Cup stadiums
DOHA, Qatar (AP) — The sale of all beer with alcohol at the eight World Cup stadiums was banned Friday, only two days before the soccer tournament is set to start.
Non-alcoholic beer will still be sold at the 64 matches in the country.
“Following discussions between host country authorities and FIFA, a decision has been made to focus the sale of alcoholic beverages on the FIFA Fan Festival, other fan destinations and licensed venues, removing sales points of beer from … stadium perimeters,” FIFA said in a statement.
Champagne, wine, whiskey and other alcohol is still expected to be served in the luxury hospitality areas of the stadiums. Outside of those places, beer is normally the only alcohol sold to regular ticket holders.
Ab InBev, the parent company of World Cup beer sponsor Budweiser, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
AB InBev pays tens of millions of dollars at each World Cup for exclusive rights to sell beer and has already shipped the majority of its stock from Britain to Qatar in expectation of selling its product to millions of fans. The company’s partnership with FIFA started at the 1986 tournament and they are in negotiations for renewing their deal for the next World Cup in North America.
While a sudden decision like this may seem extreme in the West, Qatar is an autocracy governed by a hereditary emir, who has absolute say over all governmental decisions.
Qatar, an energy-rich Gulf Arab country, follows an ultraconservative form of Islam known as Wahhabism like neighboring Saudi Arabia. However, alcohol sales have been permitted in hotel bars for years.
Qatar’s government and its Supreme Committee for Delivery and Legacy did not immediately respond to request for comment.
Already, the tournament has seen Qatar change the date of the opening match only weeks before the World Cup began.
When Qatar launched its bid to host the World Cup, the country agreed to FIFA’s requirements of selling alcohol in stadiums, and again when signing contracts after winning the vote in 2010.
At the 2014 World Cup in Brazil, the host country was forced to change a law to allow alcohol sales in stadiums.
Ronan Evain, the executive director of the fan group Football Supporters Europe, called the decision to ban beer sales at the stadiums in Qatar “extremely worrying.”
“For many fans, whether they don’t drink alcohol or are used to dry stadium policies at home, this is a detail. It won’t change their tournament,” Evain wrote on Twitter. “But with 48 (hours) to go, we’ve clearly entered a dangerous territory — where ‘assurances’ don’t matter anymore.”
AB InBev’s deal with FIFA was renewed in 2011 — after Qatar was picked as host — in a two-tournament package through 2022. However, the Belgium-based brewer has faced uncertainty in recent months on the exact details of where it can serve and sell beer in Qatar.
An agreement was announced in September for beer with alcohol to be sold within the stadium perimeters before and after games. Only alcohol-free Bud Zero would be sold in the stadium concourses for fans to drink in their seats in branded cups.
Last weekend, AB InBev was left surprised by a new policy insisted on by Qatari organizers to move beer stalls to less visible locations within the perimeter.
Budweiser was also to be sold in the evenings only at the official FIFA fan zone in downtown Al Bidda Park, where up to 40,000 fans can gather to watch games on giant screens. The price was confirmed as $14 for a beer.
The company will be based at an upscale hotel in the West Bay area of Doha with its own branded nightclub for the tournament.
At the W Hotel in Doha, workers continued putting together a Budweiser-themed bar planned at the site. Its familiar AB logo was plastered on columns and walls at the hotel, with one reading: “The World Is Yours To Take.”
___
AP World Cup coverage: https://apnews.com/hub/world-cup and https://twitter.com/AP_Sports
Graham Dunbar, The Associated Press
Canadian Taxpayers are funding programs in foreign countries with little effect
Back in early November I reached out to Global Affairs Canada (GAC) for a response to questions I later posed in my What Happens When Ministries Go Rogue post. You might recall how GAC has contributed billions of dollars to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, only to badly miss their stated program objectives. Here, for the record, is my original email:
I’m doing research into GAC program spending and I’m having trouble tracking down information. For instance, your Project Browser tool tells me that, between 2008 and 2022, Canada committed $3.065 billion to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. The tool includes very specific outcomes (like a drop of at least 40 per cent in malaria mortality rates). Unfortunately, according to reliable public health data, none of the targets were even close to being achieved – especially in the years since 2015.
Similarly, Canada’s $125 million of funding to the World Food Programme between 2016 and 2021 to fight hunger in Africa roughly corresponded to a regional rise in malnutrition from 15 to 19.7 percent of the population since 2013.
I’ve been able to find no official documentation that GAC has ever conducted reviews of these programs (and others like it) or that you’ve reconsidered various funding choices in light of such failures. Is there data or information that I’m missing?
Just a few days ago, an official in the Business Intelligence Unit for Global Affairs Canada responded with a detailed email. He first directed me to some slightly dated but comprehensive assessments of the Global Fund, links to related audits and investigations, and a description of the program methodology.
The Audit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
To their credit, the MOPAN 2022 Global Fund report identified five areas where important targets were missed, including the rollout of anti-corruption and fraud policies and building resilient and sustainable systems for health. That self-awareness inspires some confidence. And, in general, the assessments were comprehensive and serious.
What initially led me to suggest that GAC was running on autopilot and ignoring the real world impact of their spending was, in part, due to the minimalist structure of the GAC’s primary reporting system (their website). But it turns out that the one-dimensional objectives listed there did not fully reflect the actual program goals.
Nevertheless, none of the documents addressed my core questions:
- Why had the programs failed to meet at least some of their mortality targets?
- Why, after years of such shortfalls, did GAC continue to fully fund the programs?
The methodology document did focus a lot of attention on modelling counterfactuals. In other words, estimating how many people didn’t die due to their interventions. One issue with that is, by definition, counterfactuals are speculative. But the bigger problem is that, given at least some of the actual real-world results, they’re simply wrong.
As I originally wrote:
Our World in Data numbers give us a pretty good picture of how things played out in the real world. Tragically, Malaria killed 562,000 people in 2015 and 627,000 in 2020. That’s a jump of 11.6 percent as opposed to the 40 percent decline that was expected. According to the WHO, there were 1.6 million tuberculosis victims in 2015 against 1.2 million in 2023. That’s a 24.7 percent drop – impressive, but not quite the required 35 per cent.
I couldn’t quickly find the precise HIV data mentioned in the program expectations, but I did see that HIV deaths dropped by 26 percent between 2015 and 2021. So that’s a win.
I’m now inclined to acknowledge that the Global Fund is serious about regularly assessing their work. It wouldn’t be fair to characterize GAC operations as completely blind.
But at the same time, over the course of many years, the actual results haven’t come close to matching the programs objectives. Why has the federal government not shifted the significant funding involved to more effective operations?
The Audit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
From the Fraser Institute
By Mackenzie Moir and Bacchus Barua
At 30 weeks, this year marked the longest total wait for non-emergency surgery in more than 30 years of measurement.
Our system isn’t just worsening over time, it’s also performing badly compared to our universal health-care peers.
Earlier this year, the U.S.-based Commonwealth Fund (in conjunction with the Canadian Institute for Health Information) released the results of their international health policy survey, which includes nine high-income universal health-care countries—Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, Canada continued to come in near or dead last on key measures of timely access. Most notably, Canada ranked worst for wait times for specialists and non-emergency surgery.
For example, whereas almost half (46 per cent) of Canadians surveyed indicated they waited two months or more for a specialist appointment, that number was just 15.1 per cent in the Netherlands and 13.2 per cent in Switzerland. And while one in five (19.9 per cent) Canadians reported waiting more than one year for non-emergency surgery, just half a per cent (0.6) of Swiss respondents indicated a similar wait. And no one in the Netherlands reported waiting as long.
What explains the superior performance of these two countries compared to Canada?
Simply put, they do universal health care very differently.
For example, the Netherlands, which ranked first on both indicators, mandates that residents purchase private insurance in a regulated but competitive marketplace. This system allows for private insurance firms to negotiate with health-care providers on prices, but these insurance firms must also accept all applicants and charge their policy holders the same monthly fee for coverage (i.e. they cannot discriminate based on pre-existing conditions).
In Switzerland, which ranked among the top three on both measures, patients must also purchase coverage in a regulated private insurance marketplace and share (10-20 per cent) of the cost of their care (with an annual maximum and protections for the most vulnerable).
Both countries also finance their hospitals based on their activity, which means hospitals are paid for the services they actually provide for each patient, and are incentivized to provide higher volumes of care. Empirical evidence also suggests this approach improves hospital efficiency and potentially lowers wait times. In contrast, governments in Canada provide hospitals with fixed annual budgets (known as “global budgets”) so hospitals treat patients like costs to be minimized and are disincentivized from treating complex cases.
It’s no surprise that in 2022, the latest year of available data, a lot more Swiss (94 per cent) and Dutch (83 per cent) reported satisfaction with their health-care system compared to Canadians (56 per cent).
No matter where you look, evidence on the shortcomings of Canada’s health-care system is clear. Fundamental reform is required for Canadians to have timelier care that matches what’s available in universal health-care countries abroad.
Gov’t memo admits Canadians are shifting to independent news due to distrust of media, not Russian ‘bots’
Canadian military deployed ‘gender advisors’ to Ukraine, Haiti at taxpayers’ expense
Two major banks leave UN Net Zero Banking Alliance in two weeks
The idea of ‘democracy’ championed by globalist elites is far from what the people think
-
armed forces2 days ago
Canadian military deployed ‘gender advisors’ to Ukraine, Haiti at taxpayers’ expense
-
Business2 days agoRand Paul Releases Report Detailing $1,000,000,000,000 In Gov’t Waste. Here Are The Worst Offenders
-
Business3 hours ago
Global Affairs Canada Foreign Aid: An Update
-
Alberta3 hours agoAlberta’s Massive Carbon Capture and Storage Network clearing hurdles: Pathways Alliance
-
Business3 hours ago
Canadian health care continues to perform poorly compared to other countries
-
espionage3 hours agoChinese spies arrested in California