AND It is easier to satisfy our moral needs by imposing obligations on others than by confronting our own. This occurred to me when I heard the countless criticisms of Cristiano Ronaldo’s trip to the White House as part of a Saudi delegation. The problem was not going to the White House and meeting Trump (it would be absurd to criticize the participation of any Portuguese person — and his “brand” — in a dinner at the White House, whatever one’s judgment on the current American President). Criticism focused on the fact that Ronaldo “lent” his fame to the Saudi regime. I understand the criticism, but I find it deeply hypocritical since I haven’t heard a single one of these critics arguing that Portugal should refuse to participate in the world cup in Saudi Arabia (nor did they defend it when it was in Qatar). The moral dilemma is the same: both Ronaldo’s trip to Saudi Arabia (and his participation in actions to promote the country) and the world championship in which our team will participate are part of a strategy to promote that country and, indirectly, the political capital of its regime and leaders. Anyone who thinks that Ronaldo should not lend his prestige for this purpose should, consequently, reject that our national team does so too… They should even oppose our organization of the 2030 World Cup, which we accepted would be the first in history to be co-organized by countries from three continents, to allow the 2034 World Cup to be awarded to… Saudi Arabia.