[Politics] Ukraine says Russia should lose 2018 World Cup over Crimea

[itsConnor_]

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Ukraine's ambassador to the European Union said on Wednesday that Russia should face EU financial sanctions and lose the right to host the 2018 soccer World Cup because of its annexation of the Crimea region. Russia had crossed a red line by annexing Crimea and making aggressive moves towards eastern Ukraine and the EU must impose the tough economic sanctions it has threatened, he said.

The EU has imposed sanctions on 61 Russians and Ukrainians and frozen the assets of two Crimean companies in response to Russia's actions in Ukraine, but its 28 member states are divided over imposing tougher trade or financial sanctions because of fears this would damage their own economies and provoke Russian retaliation.

Yelisieiev urged the EU to show that economic and business interests did not prevail over what he called European values. He also suggested the rest of the world take steps such as to "withdraw the right from the Russian Federation to host the World Cup ... for 2018." Such a step would hurt the Russian leadership "because for Putin this is a huge political ... and financial project," he said.

Two U.S. senators, Dan Coats and Mark Kirk, wrote to FIFA in March asking it to convene an emergency session to consider suspending Russia's membership, strip it of its right to host the 2018 World Cup and bar Russia from this year's World Cup in Brazil. FIFA responded that only a violation of its statutes could lead to a country's expulsion from a competition. Russia was awarded the right to host the 2018 World Cup in 2010.

The EU should also support Ukraine by offering the prospect of eventual EU membership, giving it legal help to recover assets seized by Russia in Crimea, and by allowing Ukrainians to travel to the EU without visas, Yelisieiev said. The EU has said it is willing to provide $15 billion in loans and grants to Ukraine over several years to help get the shattered economy back on its feet.

Read more at Chicago Tribune. 

[Eternal_Jamie]

Would be a stupid and hypocritical move if they did.

[itsConnor_]

Would be a stupid and hypocritical move if they did.

Could you elaborate?

[Eternal_Jamie]

They [fifa] are ignoring the mass complaints of the Brazilian public and the economic effects hosting the world cup has had (or at least affected) on them, such as inflation, increased travel costs and little to no increase in wages. That in my mind is a much better reason to question if games should go ahead than because some politicians think a country should be punished. Just the usual political attempts at blackmailing to quell Russia "stop threatening ukraine or no world cup". Least for now FIFA is being sensible and not doing it, but can see more pressure mounting.

[GRIMI_]

They [fifa] are ignoring the mass complaints of the Brazilian public and the economic effects hosting the world cup has had (or at least affected) on them, such as inflation, increased travel costs and little to no increase in wages. That in my mind is a much better reason to question if games should go ahead than because some politicians think a country should be punished. Just the usual political attempts at blackmailing to quell Russia "stop threatening ukraine or no world cup". Least for now FIFA is being sensible and not doing it, but can see more pressure mounting.

In my opinion, FIFA shouldn't allow the world cup in places where the money could be used for the citizen's benefit. However, if the profit made from the competition was put back towards the citizens needs, it could be very beneficial. I mean, look at the difference between rich and poor in some countries. India for example has its own space program, but still millions of citizens live in slums, struggling to afford to live.

On the topic of Russia, people tried to boycott and protest against the Winter Olympics, but it still went ahead. Obviously not enough people cared about it then, so why would people care about it now. (and when I mean people, I actually mean the sponsors. They should care more about what is right, rather than their personal gain. They should realise by now that sponsoring things that the people don't want gives a BAD image)