Qatar World Cup 2022 Sports|Qatar World Cup 2022 FIFA earns record $7.5bn revenue for Qatar World CupThe earnings from this World Cup cycle are $1bn more than those generated from the 2018 tournament in Russia. 20 Nov 2022 FIFA has earned an unprecedented $7.5bn in revenue through four years of commercial deals tied to the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, the governing body of football says. The earnings, which FIFA revealed on Sunday to officials from more than 200 of its member nations, are $1bn more than what the organisation pulled in from the previous World Cup cycle leading up to the 2018 event in Russia. The extra income was buoyed by commercial deals with this year’s hosts. Qatar Energy joined as a top-tier sponsor, and new third-tier sponsors include Qatari bank QNB and telecommunications firm Ooredoo. FIFA also added second-tier sponsor deals this year from financial platform crypto.com and blockchain provider Algorand, its first new American sponsor in more than a decade. Key broadcast deals for this year’s World Cup were signed during Sepp Blatter’s presidency in two-tournament deals for the Russia and Qatar events. They included deals with Fox in the United States and Qatari broadcaster BeIN Sports from 2011. FIFA pays for host countries’ organising committees, prize money, travel and accommodation for teams and support staff. It also pays for a legacy fund to help develop the sport in the host country after the World Cup circus has left town. The winners of the Qatar World Cup will receive $44m out of a total prize pot of $440m. FIFA organises its accounts in four-year cycles around each World Cup. For the 2015-2018 cycle leading up to the Russian World Cup, the governing body brought in $6.4bn. It has used that cash to help member bodies through uncertainty in 2020 when national team football and World Cup qualifying games were almost entirely shut down. The organisation’s revenues are likely to approach $10bn for the next four years, thanks to a new financial strategy for women’s football and the expanded 2026 World Cup in the US, Canada and Mexico, which will see 48 teams compete for the first time, up from the present 32. FIFA has an almost blank slate for the 2026 edition with top-tier sponsors Coca-Cola, Adidas and Wanda the only deals currently extended. Separate sponsor deals for women’s football are being signed for the 2023 World Cup in Australia and New Zealand.

Oh Deer! White-Tailed Deer Biology naturalistoutreach

Hanson, Neil. The Custom of the Sea. London: Endeavour Press, 2017.

📖 Hanson, Neil. The Custom of the Sea. London: Endeavour Press, 2017.

Rothbard, Murray N. The Ethics of Liberty. Auburn: Mises Institute, 2016.

📖 Rothbard, Murray N. The Ethics of Liberty. Auburn: Mises Institute, 2016.

Lifeboat Situations Chapter 20 of The Ethics of Liberty Rothbard, Murray N. The Ethics of Liberty. Auburn: Mises Institute, 2016. p 149.

Lifeboat Ethics: Would you sacrifice one life to save many? Harvard Online 2:24 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcKg7a3lNzw

The Queen vs Dudley and Stephens (1884) (The Lifeboat Case) Harvard Case Solution & Analysis Home >> Harvard Case Study Analysis Solutions >> The Queen vs Dudley and Stephens (1884) (The Lifeboat Case) https://www.thecasesolutions.com/the-queen-vs-dudley-and-stephens-1884-the-lifeboat-case-2-27519 ------------------------------------- Who are the affected stakeholders involved in the case? List them thoroughly. Consequences to the whole context All four had a major stake in the case. ◾️Parker (Person who got killed) ◾️Brooks (Decision opposing person) ◾️Dudley and Stephens (Murderers) Parker, who was killed had no option because he had absolutely no idea that there was any as such scheme going on. He was ill, but young enough to resist and provide an alternative solution. Parker who after getting murdered saved the lives of other three in a way, but he was not consulted for any decision or suggestion, and he had no major role to play as a decision maker. As far as the role of the Brooks was concerned, he clearly had opposed the decision to kill Parker. From the beginning, his point of view was clear that no such act should be conducted because it was against the humanity (McCloskey, 2011). Later on, he was asked by the other two to take a side and let them do their work. Brooks could have tried to resist and helped Parker save his life by defending him and must have called a detailed meeting of all the 4 people to get the best possible solution. He could have even informed Parker about the expected ambush which could be there any time. As far the role of Dudley and Stephen were concerned, they had a major part to play. These two actually proposed the idea of killing parker and were completely disagreeing with the Brook’s point of view. They caught a turtle to manage for few days, but it wasn’t enough after all. Since they had no other option as per their point of view, therefore they killed Parker straight away. They justified this act by saying that to save the lives of others one can be sacrificed. These two were the people who introduced the turning point in the case. Application of ethical theory/modes: Links to utilitarian thinking (systematic) – Please refer to each. 3 for clarification on utilitarianism! As far as the as the concept of Utilitarianism is concerned, it is an effort to present an answer to the real question “What should a man have done?” Its answer is that he has to act in a particular manner to produce the best possible consequences. The act of Dudley and Stevens can be justified to some extent by the principle of Utilitarianism is applied; the argument: “The happiness of the majority should be brought into consideration”. Both of the murderers uses the phenomenon that the moral worth of an act is determined by its effectiveness in maximizing required utility and the balance of pleasure over the actual pain. The slope of their action can justify the act of majority abusing the minorities throughout the history, and deny the individual humanity rights in all systems, though utilitarianism offers some simple methods of achieving prosperity or happiness, it have many limitation and may lead to society where the majority have minority do whatever they please. Moreover, it is also a valuable argument that Utilitarianism actually relies upon some theory of the intrinsic value which says that something can counted to be good in itself but apart from further penalties or outcomes (Popkin, 1950). On a general note in the light of utilitarian thinking this act of murder is justified in terms of saving the lives of the majority. Your personal voice and action: What you would advise the subject involved in your case (ethical dilemma) to do and act? And WHY?

The actual issue here is the justification of a murder of an innocent person. Personally I believe that it is a flawed idea that an innocent human life could be equated with some amount of money or “number for live”, which can indirectly allow the rich and stronger to murder innocent and weak. If I would have been on the boat, I would have called a meeting and drafted an immediate plan. One of us could try catching fish from the sea, when the sea is calm (Singer, 2011). Additionally, I could have advised the two murderers to think hundred more times before committing such an act and would have persuaded them to adopt the other option which could benefit all four at a same time. In this situation, I would have even volunteered to help building some instrument for fishing... -------------------------------------

Cannibalism at sea: the starving Victorian sailors who ate a cabin boy When, in 1884, the starving crew of the ill-fated yacht Mignonette sacrificed a man in order to survive, the horrific killing became immortalised in legal history, relates Carl Thompson On 19 May 1884 four men set sail from Southampton in a small yacht. They were professional sailors tasked with taking their vessel, the Mignonette, to its new owner in Australia. As men reared to the sea, born and raised in coastal communities, they were under no illusions as to the dangers of an ocean voyage. Yet none of the Mignonette’s crew can have anticipated the full horror that lay ahead. And they certainly could not have imagined that their voyage, and the ordeal they would endure, would leave a lasting legal and cultural legacy – a legacy that extends right down to the present day. The Mignonette’s captain, Tom Dudley, was 31 years old and a proven yachtsman. Of his crew, Ned Brooks and mate Edwin Stephens were likewise seasoned sailors. The final crew-member, cabin boy Richard Parker, was just 17 years old and making his first voyage on the open sea; however, he came from a seafaring family and had sailed extensively on inshore waters. On 5 July, sailing from Madeira to Cape Town, the Mignonette was sunk by a giant wave. Its crew escaped in the yacht’s dinghy but found themselves in a desperate situation. Adrift in an open boat in the South Atlantic, hundreds of miles from land, they had little in the way of provisions. They had no water, and for food, only two 1lb tins of turnips grabbed during the Mignonette’s final moments. Over the next 12 days, these turnips were scrupulously rationed out, with Dudley using his penknife to divide precisely the tiny portions. This meagre fare was supplemented for a while by the meat of a turtle, caught as it swam by the boat. For water, however, the crew could do little more than catch rain drops whenever a squall blew up. They therefore resorted to drinking their own urine, although this too was a diminishing resource as their bodies became increasingly dehydrated. By 17 July all supplies on board the little dinghy had been exhausted. After a further three days, the inexperienced Richard Parker could not resist gulping down sea water in an attempt to allay his thirst. It is now known that small quantities of sea water can help to sustain life in survival situations, but in that period it was widely believed to be fatal. Parker also drank far in excess of modern recommendations and he was soon violently unwell, collapsing in the bottom of the boat with diarrhoea. Even before Parker fell ill, Tom Dudley had broached the fearful topic of the ‘custom of the sea’, the practice of drawing lots to select a sacrificial victim who could be consumed by his crew-mates. Over the coming days, as Parker’s condition deteriorated, Dudley raised the idea again. As he insisted to Stephens in the early hours of 25 July, when the men had been adrift for almost three weeks: “The boy is dying. You have a wife and five children, and I have a wife and three children. Human flesh has been eaten before.” A grisly decision Stephens put off any decision, but at daybreak Parker seemed weaker than ever. Significant looks were exchanged between captain and mate. According to their subsequent depositions, however, no lots were drawn. Instead, Dudley told Stephens to hold Parker’s legs should he struggle, before kneeling and thrusting his penknife into the boy’s jugular. A chronometer case was used to catch the oozing blood and this was quickly passed between Parker’s three crew-mates, to moisten their parched mouths. Parker’s body was then stripped and butchered. The heart and liver were eaten immediately; strips of flesh were cut from his limbs and set aside as future rations. What remained of the young man was heaved overboard.

Dudley, Stephens and Brooks survived on this grisly diet for several days. But when the meat cut from the cabin boy began to rot, the crew again faced the grisly prospect of following the custom of the sea. This time, however, no sacrifice was required. On 29 July, when the men had been adrift for 24 days, a ship was sighted on the horizon. The Moctezuma, a German vessel bound for Hamburg, spotted the dinghy and came to the aid of its emaciated crew. The Mignonette’s survivors were soon being cared for, and a month later they arrived back in England, disembarking at Falmouth. At this point the Mignonette’s unlucky crew must have thought that their suffering was over. But for Dudley and Stephens a new ordeal was just beginning. From the moment he was rescued, Dudley made no attempt to hide or gloss over the sad fate of Richard Parker. He was a forthright, honest man and to his mind killing and consuming Parker was a tragic necessity. However repugnant it was to take such drastic measures, they were justified, he would always maintain, by well-established maritime traditions. The authorities in Britain viewed matters differently. Public opinion in Falmouth was mostly sympathetic to the crew’s action. However, the local shipping master was required by law to notify the Board of Trade of a violent death on a British ship. He duly sent a telegram to London, then reluctantly arrested the survivors pending further investigation. Dudley and the others were amazed at this turn of events. Little did they know that they were now caught up in a legal process less concerned with their specific case than with reaching a general ruling on the legitimacy of the custom of the sea. Ten years previously, lots had been drawn and another hapless victim cannibalised after the wreck of the Euxine, and at that date the legal establishment had sought to prosecute the perpetrators. However, the case had collapsed due to procedural problems. A decade on, the Home Office saw a new opportunity to define the law’s stance on these tragic episodes. The crew of the Mignonette duly appeared before local magistrates. Brooks was exonerated, being deemed to have played little active part in either the killing of the boy or the prior discussions about his fate. But Dudley and Stephens, to their surprise and horror, were arraigned for murder. Outside the courtroom, public sympathies ran strongly in favour of the Mignonette survivors. Parker’s eldest brother, Daniel, also a sailor, twice shook hands with Dudley and Stephens, as if to offer the family’s pardon for their actions. Yet when the trial began in Exeter in November 1884, it was soon apparent that the outcome was largely predetermined. Addressing both the jury and a packed chamber, Judge Baron Huddleston opened the trial with a detailed explanation as to why the law could not recognise necessity as justification for killing. The defence case was thus invalidated before it had even been delivered. Guilty verdict Despite this steering by the judge, the jury was reluctant to pronounce Dudley and Stephens guilty. Murder was a capital offence, and a guilty verdict would automatically condemn the men to execution; only if their sentence was commuted would they be saved this fate. At this juncture, in another preplanned gambit, Huddleston offered the jury the option of returning a ‘special verdict’, an unusual judicial procedure which referred the case up to a higher court.