We are not against working towards making "World Cup" matches available for viewing to the public (regardless of the final outcome of those efforts). Everyone has the right to follow this global sporting event if they wish, at their own convenience, and to refrain from watching it if they are not interested. However, is it permissible to search for ways to achieve this goal by spending around 5 million dollars (we repeat, we are discussing this from a principled standpoint, irrespective of the final result of those efforts) that could be used to provide some necessities for the poorest and weakest Lebanese groups during the coming four months, which is a season of severe cold?
### Corrupt Management
Providing broadcast coverage of "World Cup" matches for both the rich and the poor, at a cost of 5 million dollars taken from the mouths of the country's poorest, reminds us of a support policy that has benefited the rich before the poor over the past decades. Spending 5 million dollars on a "World Cup" that will only be watched by the wealthy in the end, given that the poor do not have the conditions that allow for regular viewing, is merely an extension of a corrupt administration that is quick to spend on anything when under pressure.
### One Million Dollars
In addition, the recent announcement about the arrest of a gang whose members broke into a strongbox inside a home in Lebanon and stole 1 million and 50 thousand dollars confirms that a specific segment of Lebanese people has the financial means to watch the "World Cup" in various ways and at their own expense. Anyone who has a million dollars in their home may likely have even more outside of it, and does not need a "scattered" Lebanese state seeking food and health assistance, loans, and programs from international financial institutions to enable them to watch the "World Cup." Therefore, there is no need to discuss the fate of the 5 million dollars, except to the extent that it could be better utilized for other purposes aside from the "World Cup."
### Begging
An informed source stressed that "a state cannot beg before the world and simultaneously claim it has secured 5 million dollars for something that does not provide sustainable benefits, namely broadcasting a sporting event for less than a month." They affirmed in a statement to "Akhbar Al-Yawm" agency that "if we add 5 million dollars to the first 5 million, we have 10 million dollars, which is more than sufficient to repair one of the hydroelectric plants in the country or to maintain water networks and connect them to a network of solar panels in the vicinity, which would provide water and electricity for several areas. If achieved, this could resolve the water and electricity crises in areas within Beirut, Kesrouan, Metn, and others."
### One Time
The source pointed out that "the 5 million dollars could also be a primary amount in a fund to support the education of a number of students during the current school year. This is a type of investment that does not vanish with the passage of time, unlike the "World Cup." They added: "Spending 5 million dollars to provide viewing of "World Cup" matches is not a priority for everyone. Some Lebanese people are not interested in soccer at all, nor in sports events, and they should not be deprived of the opportunity to benefit from every dollar available in the state treasury, for their vital needs."
They concluded, "Lebanese priorities are currently focused on electricity, water, healthcare, education, and food supplies in a country suffering from fundamental issues at the level of public administrations, authorities, judiciary, economy, and security. It is unacceptable to wave ownership of 5 million dollars for broadcasting "World Cup" matches in one hand, alongside the act of 'begging' with the other, simultaneously."
