Why does FIFA President Gianni Infantino feel, or to be more precise, why did FIFA President Gianni Infantino feel on Saturday - because I strongly suspect he may have been persuaded to change his feelings a bit in the interim - that he was Qatari, Arabic, African, gay, disabled and a migrant worker?

He gave us his own answer on the day - because he once had red hair and freckles and is Italian and was therefore picked on by fellow children when he was growing up in Switzerland.

No doubt Infantino did have some miserable moments as the freckled child of an immigrant couple, and that is a shame. It is also an insight into what may have driven him to seek the FIFA top job and to hold onto it so tenaciously that he will shortly embark upon a third - unopposed - term of office.

But there is no equivalence.

As a five-year-old I was once marched down a wooded bank by a group of lads and held over a stream to see if I would cry and I eventually did. I didn’t enjoy the experience. But it doesn’t mean I can claim to empathise with any oppressed individual, that my pain matches theirs. It doesn’t.

When Infantino, Mr child-is-the-father-of-the-man, shares his pain with us all, when he rises, messianic, from his top table seat and spreads his arms as if awaiting the nails, those cruel nails driven in by humanitarian critics around the globe, and exclaims: "You can crucify me, I’m here for that. But don’t criticise Qatar. Let people enjoy this World Cup" he thinks he is Jesus; but is in fact Pontius Pilate.

For all his statements about a migrant workers’ centre being on the brink of starting to be built, and that gay people are welcome in Qatar (as long as they are not too obviously gay or anything), Infantino has washed his hands of the moral awkwardness of holding the World Cup in Qatar.

This is a country where reliable reports indicate thousands of migrant workers have died in the process of building its stadiums and related infrastructure. A country where being gay is illegal and punishable by imprisonment or, theoretically, death.

No, Qatar is not the only country to hold these beliefs. And indeed a number of the western nations that oppose the sanctions applied on the LGBT community have, in the past, also ruled same-sex relations illegal, if not punishable by death.

No, Infantino is not responsible for the culture and beliefs of Qatar, which will ultimately be shaped or changed by the people of Qatar.

Nor is he even responsible for the decision made in 2010 to take the World Cup finals to a country that had no notable history in the game and which was, even in its winters, oppressively, insufferably and dangerously…hot.

 The latter responsibility lies with a group of FIFA Executive Board members who have, with a few notable exceptions, been subsequently revealed as guilty of varying levels of corruption.

But Infantino has sought to neutralise, to check, to silence criticism of the latest World Cup hosts at the very moment when, historically, such criticisms rise to a high point.

The weeks and days before a major sporting event such as an Olympics or a World Cup have always been the ones where local injustices or incompetence have been highlighted by the media.

This is part of the unspoken deal for countries who stage big sporting competitions. The larger the event, the sharper and more widespread the focus on the perceived faults and failings of the host.

Infantino’s, and hence FIFA’s position is: don’t go on about it, you’ll only make things worse.

Indeed, Infantino has gone further, claiming on Saturday (November 19) that European nations had, historically, no right to criticise.

"I think for what we Europeans have been doing the last 3,000 years we should be apologising for next 3,000 years before starting to give moral lessons to people.

"I have difficulties understanding the criticism…"

What is he talking about? The British Empire? The Spanish Empire? The Roman Empire? The Greek Empire?

God knows those encompassed enormous barbarity.

But I seem to recall that there have been a few other empires that were not European over the past two or three millennia. The Babylonian Empire. The Egyptian Empire. The Ottoman Empire. Ancient Middle East empires. None without their own cruelties and enormities. Such is human nature.

So as a history lesson, this was grotesque.

Infantino continued: "This one-sided moral lesson is just hypocrisy.

"I wonder why no-one recognises the progress made here since 2016."

Hang on there. What does "progress" mean in this context? Does it mean stepping towards a position of greater fairness for workers brought into the country as cheap and expendable labour? Does it mean more leniency and understanding with regard to same-sex relationships?

If so, the word Infantino uses implies exactly the moral judgement he is objecting to from "Europeans."

The FIFA President’s comments have been widely criticised, not least by various human rights organisations.

"Infantino's comments were as crass as they were clumsy and suggest that the FIFA President is getting his talking points direct from the Qatari authorities," said FairSquare director Nicholas McGeehan.

"Deflection and whataboutery have always been at the core of Qatar's PR efforts to defend its rank failures, and now they have the FIFA President doing their work for them."

Two other points have been strongly debated in recent days with regard to the Qatar 2022 World Cup finals.

Firstly there has been criticism of those such as Gary Neville or Gary Lineker, who have criticised the Qatari regime and the decision to award the country the World Cup but are out there now commentating or commenting on the games.

Lineker has been scorned for saying that he is in Qatar to report, not to support.

But that is a legitimate position - or at least there is a legitimate debate to be had over it.

Do the main bulk of reporters and media representatives currently in Qatar feel they are supporting and endorsing the ruling regime by being there? I doubt it. I didn’t feel that when I was in Doha covering Diamond League meetings or the 2019 World Athletics Championships.

If you are allowed to write critically when you feel it is justified - and you may have noticed one or two less-than-admiring pieces being filed about the Qatar 2022 World Cup in recent days, weeks, months - then I think it is legitimate to be there.

Finally another question. What about the beer?

From FIFA’s point of view the late decision by the hosts to veto the idea of alcohol being sold at the stadiums has been a nightmare, not least for the potentially costly ructions this will cause with the unique supplier and steadfast - up to now - sponsor, Budweiser.

The Qatari’s insistence upon this late change of plan will also send a signal to sponsors as the country resumes its quest to host the other big beast of sporting events, the Olympic and Paralympic Games. And the signals will not be reassuring.

Meanwhile what of the benighted and sweltering fans? 

FIFA confirmed in its announcement that alcohol sales will be confined to special "fan zones" where pints cost £12 ($14.20/€14), are only available at certain times, and are limited to four per person. 

For many supporters this is the choice of nightmares - beer or football?

Now I like a beer as much as anyone. It is one of life's blessings, particularly at certain times. But I hope I am still capable of watching and enjoying football, or other sports, without having to have a can of beer in my hand. Or, while I am on about it, without having to bet on the result.

There are places you can go to in Doha to get a beer. Not many, but some. And there are the fan-zones. Ultimately, however, you don’t have a divine right to drink alcohol in a Muslim country which disapproves of drinking alcohol.

It is the timing of the latest veto, rather than the veto itself, which feels unfair.

Beer and champagne, however, will be freely available at stadiums to those in corporate areas.

Make of that what you will.