A CENTURY ago, enemies briefly stopped trying to kill one another and emerged from trenches to kick a ball about with one another. Tonight, with a form of civil war engulfing football, men representing countries whose politicians are on either side of an argument took part in a friendly football match at Easter Road.

 
 
Placed in proper context there was something rather crass about the ill-thought-through opportunism of these calls for a boycott as sport, so far down the list of priorities when it comes to governmental funding, once again found itself used as a convenient way of seeking to engage in gesture politics.
Many of us can recollect the tit-for-tat nonsense of the USA and Soviet Union taking turns to refuse to attend Olympics being staged in the other country, while Margaret Thatcher's government took the particularly cowardly option in 1980 of trying to place all the pressure on athletes rather than, as the USA was doing, banning their team from going. Intermittently that has gone on ever since, always when it suits governments to do so, but not otherwise such as seven years ago when, with the world becoming aware of the huge markets suddenly becoming available in China, there was little in the way of complaint about taking part in an Olympic Games in a country that regularly features among the top few nations in league tables related to human rights violations.
No such worries about upsetting mere former super-powers of course which is why, last year, I found myself at St Andrews University debating whether or not the Winter Olympics should be taking place in Sochi, given Russia's attitude to the LGBT community.
While I used the platform to point towards the human rights issues raised by, for example, the detention of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay and even the fact that black men were 30 times more likely to be stopped and searched by the Metropolitan police than their white counterparts, my team-mate, a gay Russian, suggested that more good is done by putting the spotlight upon countries involved in human rights abuses. We won by a ridiculous margin, some 90 per cent of a room full of bright young things accepting the irrefutable nature of the collective argument we were making. 
In these terms, then, Qatar's football team has merely been in the wrong place at the wrong time from a Scottish perspective this week as the knee-jerk brigade look for ways of showing how much they care, before moving on next week to the next populist issue while workers continue to die in Qatar.
Sustained diplomatic pressure and sanctions may make a difference to the plight of those in jeopardy, but one little country, whether it be Scotland or the UK, telling Qataris that their kids are not getting to play with our kids seems unlikely to carry much sway with those making fortunes from hurling up the infrastructure required to stage a World Cup.
In the event, a small group of 20 or so took part in a Scottish Trade Union Congress-organised protest outside Easter Road last night and made their point in dignified fashion, wielding banners and distributing posters highlighting Qatari human rights abuses, in particular the gruesome carnage that has taken place as a result of that construction work. 
Whether such criticisms had any impact on a moderate attendance was difficult to assess at a match which Scotland's management had, quite understandably,  all but branded a training match. However, given the human rights records of some of the other countries Scotland have played against in recent times without demur it would seem extremely unlikely. 
As to the other reasons cited as cause to take the World Cup away from Qatar, this match was, of course, being played at a booze-free sports venue while, on the weather front, it is worth noting that Afghani cricket supporters have, this week, been making their feelings known about how ridiculous it is that Scotland is staging important cricket matches, given its climate.
Then there is the rather spurious matter of whether Qatar deserved to be allowed to host world sport's greatest competition as opposed to countries with far greater footballing traditions such as England and, er, the USA. Admittedly their world ranking suggests they are exceedingly unlikely to take advantage of host status in terms of participation beyond the pool stages. However there were some nice touches once early apprehension was overcome, while nothing seemed to discomfit them greatly until a streaker was allowed to prance around the pitch for an inordinate amount of time, during which he exchanged a lengthy handshake with Ahmed Mohamed Abdelrahman, the bemused-looking central defender.
Furthermore, already heavily reliant on a migrant workforce, on the football field as well as elsewhere, they have plenty time to implement the sort of "project player" policy that is devaluing international sporting competition. Now there is a matter sports governing bodies might seek to address rather than being expected to get their politicians off the hook.