When a country spends billions to host a World Cup or the Olympics, what is it really buying? Supporters say it builds genuine goodwill — new roads, a brighter image, a place on the world stage. Critics call it “sportswashing” — using sport to distract from a poor record at home. This lesson does not tell you who is right. It hands you the facts, the vocabulary and a method, and asks you to build your own position.
This lesson is published in three CEFR levels so you can pick the one that fits your group:
👉 B1 version (≈ 440-word reading, simpler grammar, concrete questions)
👉 B2 version (≈ 630-word editorial reading, moderate complexity)
👉 C1 version (≈ 1,795-word editorial, full nuance and both sides)
👉 About the BEBB Method — The Agency Loop (the AI scaffolding embedded in this lesson)
👉 For teachers — how to run this in 60 or 90 minutes, what to cut, what to protect
Every version uses the same topic, the same core arguments, and the same vocabulary thread — only the linguistic complexity and the depth of the task cycles change. You can run this with one group at one level, or use it as a bridge across mixed levels.
Read the companion article → [Looking Good or Doing Good? — link]
About The BEBB Method — The Agency Loop
Every lesson I publish uses an AI scaffolding approach I call The BEBB Method — The Agency Loop, a five-step framework for using AI in language learning without letting it replace your own thinking. It is my own configuration of established best practices in human-AI collaboration, built in direct response to Gerlich (2025) on cognitive offloading, and informed by the ‘AI Sandwich’ tradition (Ippolito, 2023) and ‘AI as Critic’ scaffolding (Mollick, 2024).
Agency = your own capacity to decide, think, and act. In this method, you keep your agency at every step — you, not the AI, remain the one deciding what happens to your thinking.
The five steps are:
Think first. Before opening any AI tool, write down what you already know or believe. No searching. No prompting. Just your own starting position.
Use AI for facts. Now you can use AI — but only to look up specific facts, numbers, or background you don’t have. Not to think for you.
Draft yourself. Write your own response, paragraph, or argument using what you know plus what you’ve researched. Still no AI for the actual writing.
Challenge with AI. Paste your draft into an AI tool and ask it to find the strongest counter-argument or the weakest part of your reasoning. Read the feedback critically.
Combine. Revise your work, choosing which AI feedback to accept and which to reject — but engage with the criticism. Your final version is yours, sharpened.
Gerlich (2025) is the evidence base for why this matters: his research documents how passive AI use offloads — and weakens — our own thinking. The five steps are my own response to that problem, integrated into the BEBB lesson method so the structure lives inside the natural rhythm of an English lesson, scaled to learner level.
How the method is delivered in this lesson:
B1: Two task cycles (think first → AI challenge). Lower-intermediate learners benefit most from the anchor-and-challenge structure without the additional cognitive load of writing a no-AI middle draft.
B2: Two task cycles by default; a third “draft yourself” cycle is offered as optional, for groups with strong fluency and time on the clock.
C1: Three full task cycles (think first → draft yourself → AI challenge). Advanced learners are capable of producing real written argumentation under pressure and benefit most from the full cycle.
The method is the same. The delivery scales by level. Other teachers — feel free to adapt this to your own contexts. If you do, I’d love to hear how it lands.
For teachers
This lesson was built and tested with two groups in Germany over the course of one week, in senior-management and professional contexts. The discussion was rich enough — and the topic balanced enough — that I decided to publish all three adaptations so other teachers can save planning time and run it directly with their own learners.
Suggested format: 60–90 minutes per level, single session. The reading is the anchor; the discussion is where the value lives. Don’t rush the discussion to finish the activities — better to cut a comprehension question than to lose the conversation.
Key advice:
Hold both sides open. This is a genuinely contested topic. Your job as facilitator is not to land on “sportswashing bad” or “soft power good” — it is to keep both cases alive. Germany 2006 is the in-room counterweight that stops the room collapsing into “only authoritarian states do this.”
Keep the 2026 World Cup factual. The US/Canada/Mexico tournament is the live example. Present it the way the reading does — as an illustration of the soft-power question, with the facts stated plainly and no side taken on any government or policy. Let participants form their own views.
Protect the win/beat language gate. Across both groups the most reliable fossilised error was “we won against Brazil.” Pre-teach it, then debrief it once at the end — don’t interrupt the discussion to correct it live.
The micro-research warm-up is the engine of the lesson. Each participant takes one item (what soft power means, what sportswashing means, the most expensive event ever held, a historical boycott, the 2026 hosts, Germany 2006) to look up for 2–3 minutes and present back. It generates better discussion than any pre-written introduction. Do not skip this.
Discussion is the heart of the lesson. Give the discussion 25–30 minutes of a 60-minute lesson. Anchor questions in personal and professional experience first, then move to opinion and ethics.
Suggested 60-minute timing (B1 / B2)
Warm-up — micro-research + present-back · 10 min
Language focus — win vs beat · 5 min
Vocabulary activity · 5 min
Task 1 — Agency Loop (think first) · 5 min
Reading (silent + clarification) · 10 min
Comprehension check · 5 min
Task 3 — Challenge with AI + revise · 10 min
Discussion · 8 min
Wrap-up / one takeaway each · 2 min
Suggested 90-minute timing (C1)
Warm-up — micro-research + present-back · 12 min
Language focus — win vs beat · 6 min
Vocabulary activity · 6 min
Task 1 — Agency Loop (think first) · 8 min
Reading (silent + clarification) · 14 min
Task 2 — Draft your own argument (no AI) · 12 min
Comprehension check · 8 min
Task 3 — Challenge with AI + revise + present · 12 min
Discussion · 10 min
Wrap-up · 2 min
If you only have 45 minutes: cut the vocabulary activity, run Task 1 in 3 minutes, cut Task 3 to 6 minutes, and shorten discussion to 12 minutes. The micro-research warm-up and the win/beat gate are still essential.
B1 version
Warm-up — Micro-Research Task (10 min)
Before we read, each person becomes a quick expert on one topic. Your trainer will give you one of these items. Items 1–3 are the core ones; 4–6 are extra if you want a challenge.
What “soft power” means, in one simple sentence (core)
What “sportswashing” means, with one example (core)
The most expensive World Cup or Olympics ever held (core)
One sports boycott from history, and what it changed (stretch)
Who is hosting the 2026 World Cup, and one fact about it (stretch)
Germany’s 2006 World Cup (”Sommermärchen”) in one sentence (stretch)
Step 1 — Think first (1 min): Write down 2 or 3 things you already know or believe about your topic. Just words or short notes. This is your starting point.
Step 2 — Research (2–3 min): Use any AI tool. Copy this prompt and add your topic in the gap:
LEVEL: B1
Context: I am in an English class. The topic is big sports events
like the World Cup and the Olympics. The question is: when a country
spends billions to host one, does it really make the country better
(roads, image, friendship), or does it just hide the country's
problems? This is sometimes called "soft power" or "sportswashing".
I have to research ONE small topic and explain it to the group.
My topic is: [MY ITEM]
Please explain it in easy English, in short sentences. Tell me:
(1) What is it? (2) Why does it matter for this World Cup question?
(3) one simple fact or example I can say to the group.
Do not use difficult business words. Keep it under 100 words.Step 3 — Present (1–2 min each): Tell the group what you found. Use simple sentences.
Quick discussion (3 min):
Which topic surprised you the most?
Do you think hosting a big sports event is good for a country? Why or why not?
Language focus — win vs beat (5 min)
A very common mistake comes from the German “gewinnen gegen”. In German you “win against” a team. In English, this is wrong.
“We won against Brazil.” ❌
“We won Brazil.” ❌
“We beat Brazil.” ✅
The rule is simple:
WIN + a prize or a competition · win a match, win a medal, win the World Cup
BEAT + an opponent or a record · beat Brazil, beat the favourites, beat the record
Never say “win against”.
Your turn: Write one sentence with win and one sentence with beat about sport. Read them to your partner.
Vocabulary (B1) — match the words to the definitions
Match the words and phrases (1–8) with the definitions (A–H).
soft power
sportswashing
to host
a skyline
a stadium
to spend billions
a supply chain
a travel ban
A. to organise a big event in your country, like the World Cup
B. a rule that stops some people from entering a country
C. a large building where people watch football and other sports
D. the way a country influences others by being liked and admired, not by force
E. the long chain of factories and companies that make and deliver a product
F. when a country uses a big sports event to look good and to hide its problems
G. the line of tall buildings and towers you see in a big city
H. to pay a very large amount of money
TASK 1 (B1) — Map Your Starting Position
This is the first step of the Agency Loop. Anchor your own thinking before the reading.
Step 1 — Alone (3 min): Without using any tool, write 4–6 short keywords that show your answer to this question:
When a country spends billions to host a World Cup, is it more “looking good” or more “doing good”?
Just keywords. Not full sentences. No AI, no Google.
Step 2 — In pairs (2 min): Tell your partner your keywords and why you chose them. Try to use 2 of the new vocabulary words. Your partner asks you one short question.
Keep your keywords. You will need them later.
Reading: Looking Good or Doing Good?
(1) A woman in one of my groups flew to Qatar. She wanted to see the skyline — the tall, shining towers from the brochures. But when she got there, she could not walk to them. There were no footpaths. “I wanted to walk to see the high buildings, and I couldn’t,” she said. “It’s a waste.” This is the whole story. The picture looks great. The real place is different.
(2) Why do countries spend billions to host the World Cup? One reason is “soft power“. This means power by being liked. A happy World Cup can make a country look modern and friendly. Germany’s 2006 World Cup did this. But there is another word: “sportswashing“. This is when a country uses sport to look good and to hide problems at home. So which one is it? Sometimes the image really gets better. But often the bright light of the World Cup also shows the problems the country wanted to hide.
(3) People say Qatar 2022 cost $220 billion. But this number is wrong. The stadiums cost about $8 billion. The other money was for roads, trains and an airport. Qatar planned all of that years before — before they even won the World Cup. The country was building it anyway. The football just stood in front of it for the photo.
(4) But here is the big idea in this article. Every story points at the host country. The host is always the “bad one”. I want to turn the camera around and look at us — the people watching. We complain about the problems. We say it is terrible. And then we keep watching. We buy the shirt. We book the flight. The truth is: we let it happen. And we are not so clean ourselves. I am writing this on a phone from a factory I would not want to see. My t-shirt came from a long supply chain I would never check. So the real problem is also in the stands, with us.
(5) The next World Cup, in 2026, is in the USA, Canada and Mexico. There are problems there too — a travel ban, fans who cannot come. It is easy to say “America is the bad one”. But every country has problems, and it is not my job to judge another country’s government. America is just the newest example in a long line. So here is my one idea: care honestly. If you really care, then stop watching and pay the price. If you don’t, that is okay too. It is just a game. Find a beer garden, have a quiet beer, and enjoy the summer.
(≈ 440 words)
Comprehension questions (B1)
What did the woman want to do in Qatar, and why could she not do it? (Paragraph 1)
What does “soft power” mean, and what does “sportswashing” mean? (Paragraph 2)
Why is the “$220 billion” number for Qatar wrong? What did most of the money really pay for? (Paragraph 3)
The writer says “the problem is also in the stands, with us.” What does he mean? (Paragraph 4)
What is the writer’s one idea at the end — what does “care honestly” mean? (Paragraph 5)
TASK 3 (B1) — Challenge With AI
This is the fourth and fifth steps of the Agency Loop. Use AI to test your thinking, then make a final answer that is yours.
Step 1 — Alone (3 min): Look at your keywords from Task 1. Now answer this question in 3–5 short sentences:
When a country hosts a World Cup, is it more about looking good or doing good? What do you think — and why?
Use the reading to support your idea. Do not use AI yet.
Step 2 — Challenge with AI (3 min): Open an AI tool. Paste your answer. Use this prompt:
Read my short answer about hosting big sports events.
Please tell me, in simple English: (1) What is one strong
argument against my answer? (2) What is one important fact
I am missing? Give your answer in short, easy sentences.
Do not use difficult business words.Read the answer carefully.
Step 3 — Final version (4 min): Rewrite your answer in 3–5 sentences. You can keep your original idea, or change it. But you must use one new fact or one new idea from the AI’s response. Then read your final answer to your partner.
Discussion (B1)
Have you ever travelled to a country because of a sports event, or watched one on TV? How did it make you feel about that country?
Daniel says the real problem is “in the stands” — with us, the people watching. Do you agree, or is he too hard on normal fans? Why?
Some people say Germany’s 2006 World Cup was very good for the country. Do you remember it? What do you remember?
Daniel says: “care honestly” — stop watching, OR enjoy the game, but don’t do both. Is this fair? Can a person watch the World Cup and still complain about the problems?
Do you think a great sports event can really change your opinion of a country — or only for a short time?
Homework (B1) — “My Sports-Event Story”
This homework finishes today’s lesson at home.
Your task: Write 5–8 simple sentences OR record a 60-second voice note about a big sports event and your own life.
Questions to answer:
Do you remember a big sports event (World Cup, Olympics)? Which one?
Did it change your opinion of the host country? How?
Do you think hosting is mostly “looking good” or “doing good”?
Why?
Sentence starters (use them!):
One sports event I remember is ________.
It made me think the host country was ________.
I think hosting is mostly looking good / doing good because ________.
For me, the most important thing is ________.
Model answer (an example — do not copy, write your own):
One sports event I remember is the 2006 World Cup in Germany. I was young, but I remember the flags everywhere and the happy people in the streets. It made me think Germany was a friendly and open country. I think hosting can be both looking good and doing good at the same time. For me, the most important thing is that normal people enjoy it and the country keeps something useful afterwards, like new trains.
How to submit: Send me your sentences or voice note by Tuesday morning (WhatsApp is fine). We will read some of them together at the start of our next lesson.
B2 version
Warm-up — Micro-Research Task (8 min)
Before we read, each person becomes a quick expert on one piece of the puzzle. Your trainer will assign you one item. Items 1–3 are core; 4–6 are stretch.
What “soft power” means, in one sentence (core)
What “sportswashing” means, plus one named example (core)
The single most expensive World Cup or Olympics ever held (core)
One sporting boycott from history and what it actually achieved (stretch)
Who is hosting the 2026 World Cup, and one fact about it (stretch)
Germany’s 2006 World Cup “Sommermärchen” in one sentence (stretch)
Step 1 — Think first (1 min): Write down 2–3 things you already know or believe about your item. Keywords only. Your own thinking comes first.
Step 2 — Research (2–3 min): Use any AI tool. Copy this prompt and fill in the gap:
LEVEL: B2
Context: I'm preparing for an English discussion on "soft power vs
sportswashing" — whether a country that spends billions to host the
World Cup or the Olympics is building a genuine positive image or
just covering up its problems. I have to research one item and
present it to the group for about 60 seconds.
My item: [MY ITEM]
Give me: three key facts, one anchor statistic or concrete example,
and one trade-off or counter-argument — in clear, simple English I
could use in a meeting. Keep it under 150 words.Step 3 — Present (1–2 min each): Present your findings to the group.
Quick discussion (2 min):
Which item surprised you most?
Does hosting a mega-event make a country look better, or actually be better? Share one sentence.
Language focus — win vs beat (5 min)
A fossilised error from German “gewinnen gegen” / “wir haben Brasilien gewonnen” produces “we won against Brazil” or “we won Brazil” — both wrong. The verb you need is beat.
WIN takes a prize or a competition · win a match, win a title, win a medal, win the World Cup, win a bid
BEAT takes an opponent, a rival or a record · beat Brazil, beat the favourites, beat the holders, beat the record
Never say “win against”.
Bonus host-register verbs: to host / to stage / to bid for / to be awarded a tournament.
Your turn: Write one WIN sentence and one BEAT sentence in the soft-power context — for example, “Qatar won the bid to host the 2022 World Cup.” / “Argentina beat France on penalties.” Read both aloud.
Vocabulary (B2) — match the words to the definitions
Match the words and phrases (1–10) with the definitions (A–J).
soft power
sportswashing
to launder (a reputation)
the spotlight effect
to backfire
to normalise
hypocrisy
the host
a supply chain
a travel ban
A. to produce the opposite of the intended result
B. influence achieved through attraction and image rather than force or money
C. the country that stages the event — usually cast as the villain
D. condemning in others what you allow in yourself
E. using sport to clean up or distract from a damaged public image
F. a rule that stops some people from entering a country
G. to clean up a reputation so it looks better despite a questionable source
H. to become accepted as normal again, so that attention fades
I. the way hosting acts like a magnifying glass that also exposes what you wanted to hide
J. the full network of factories and companies that make and deliver a product
TASK 1 (B2) — Anchor Your Own View (7 min)
This is the first step of the Agency Loop. Think for yourself first, before the reading and before any AI.
Step 1 — Alone (4 min): Answer these three questions in short notes. No AI, no searching.
When you think of a country you have never visited, has a sports event ever shaped your image of it? Which country, which event?
In your own work or industry, have you seen image and reputation matter as much as the underlying reality? Give one example.
If a friend asked you today, “Is hosting the World Cup mostly soft power or mostly sportswashing?” — what would your first answer be? One sentence.
Step 2 — In pairs (3 min): Share your three answers with your partner. Try to use 2 new vocabulary words. Your partner asks you one question. Keep your notes — you will need them in Task 3.
Reading: Looking Good or Doing Good?
(1) A woman in one of my groups flew to Qatar to see the skyline — those gleaming towers from the brochures. She got there and found she couldn’t walk to them. No footpaths. “I wanted to walk to see the high buildings, and I couldn’t,” she said. “It’s a waste.” That is the whole story in miniature: the gap between the picture and the place. Spend enough money and anywhere looks magnificent for three weeks. Whether anything underneath got better is another question.
(2) Every article about this points the camera at the host. Qatar’s labour camps. Russia’s stadiums. America’s border policy in 2026. The host is always the villain. I want to turn the camera around and point it at the stands — because the real hypocrite may not be the country spending the billions. It may be us, the people watching, complaining, and watching some more.
(3) First, the words. Soft power is getting others to like you through attraction, not force — a World Cup is supposed to build it. Sportswashing is the cynical version: using sport to launder a damaged reputation. Does it work? Sometimes — Qatar climbed from 31st to 21st on one global soft-power index after hosting. But scholars found a counter-mechanism, the spotlight effect: hosting is a giant magnifying glass that also exposes what you wanted to hide. German research in 2023 found no lasting improvement in Qatar’s image. The light you bought to flatter you can make the whole thing backfire.
(4) The money is misleading too. People say Qatar spent $220 billion — but the stadiums cost roughly $8 billion. The other $210 billion was a national development plan adopted in 2008, two years before Qatar won the bid. The country was building the metros and airports anyway. The football just stood in front of them for the photo.
(5) So here is what I think. Qatar took its bad press in 2022 and normalised within a year. The spotlight exposes without punishing. We gasp, then change the channel. The uncomfortable truth is not that sportswashing works flawlessly — it is that we let it work, because outrage is the cheapest thing we own. And the hypocrisy is in the stands. I’m typing this on a phone from a factory I’d hate to tour, in a t-shirt off a supply chain I’d never dare inspect. The same public that wept over Qatari building sites keeps buying. I include myself.
(6) Which brings us to 2026 — the United States, a travel ban, fans locked out. The easy article says America is the new villain. I won’t write it: it is not my job to judge another elected government’s border policy, and the ban was signed in 2025, before the tournament, and applies whether there’s football or not. America is just the latest exhibit in a long line. So care honestly. Pay the real price of your principles, or stop pretending you have them. And if you won’t? That’s allowed. It’s just a ball people kick around for fun. This year the games kick off late — find a beer garden, have a quiet beer, watch the light go. Either really switch it off, or enjoy the game and spare us the performance.
(≈ 470 words)
TASK 2 (B2) — Draft Your Own Answer (optional — recommended if time permits)
This is the third step of the Agency Loop — write your own view before testing it against AI. Skip this task if time is tight.
Step 1 — Alone (5 min): Write 4–6 sentences answering this question in your own words:
When a country hosts a World Cup, is it mostly soft power or mostly sportswashing — or does it depend? What is your honest view?
Use at least 3 vocabulary items. No AI. This is YOUR opinion, not a fixed debate position.
Sentence starters if you need them:
In my view, hosting is mostly…
The Germany 2006 example shows me that…
The Qatar 2022 example shows me that…
Where I am still unsure is…
Step 2 — In pairs (3 min): Read your draft to your partner. Your partner tells you one sentence that was strong and one that was unclear. Keep your draft for Task 3.
Comprehension questions (B2)
What does the woman’s Qatar trip show about “the gap between the picture and the place”? (Paragraph 1)
The author “turns the camera around.” Away from whom, and towards whom — and why? (Paragraphs 2, 5)
What is the “spotlight effect,” and what did German research find about Qatar’s image? (Paragraph 3)
Why is the “$220 billion” figure for Qatar misleading, according to the reading? (Paragraph 4)
What does the author mean by “the hypocrisy is in the stands”? Use the phone and t-shirt example. (Paragraph 5)
TASK 3 (B2) — Challenge With AI and Revise (12 min)
This is the fourth and fifth steps of the Agency Loop.
Step 1 — Alone (3 min): If you did Task 2, take your draft. If you skipped Task 2, write 4–6 sentences now answering: “Is hosting a World Cup mostly soft power or mostly sportswashing — or does it depend?” Use your notes from Task 1 and the reading. Write YOUR honest opinion.
Step 2 — Challenge with AI (4 min): Open an AI tool. Paste your draft with this prompt:
Read my short text about whether hosting a World Cup is soft
power or sportswashing. Please answer in clear English:
(1) What is the strongest argument against my view?
(2) What important fact or example am I missing?
Use short sentences.Read the answer. Underline one point you agree with and one you disagree with.
Step 3 — Revise (4 min): Rewrite your draft in 5–7 sentences. Add one new fact or idea from the AI. You can keep your original opinion — but you must show that you thought about the AI’s point. You are not changing sides for the sake of it. You are making your own answer stronger.
Step 4 — Share (1 min): Read your final version to your partner.
If you run out of time: finish Step 3 at home. See the homework section at the end of this lesson.
Discussion (B2)
Has a sports event ever changed how you see a country — for better or worse? Give a specific example.
Daniel argues the real hypocrite is not the host country but the spectator — us. Where is he wrong? Is it fair to compare watching a match with buying a phone made under bad conditions?
Germany 2006 is often called a soft-power success, yet the 2006 bid later led to a tax-evasion conviction. Does that change how you see the “Sommermärchen”?
Daniel’s demand is “care honestly — pay the price of your principles, or stop pretending you have them.” Is this a clear moral rule, or is it too black-and-white? Can you care about something without giving anything up?
Should companies sponsor mega-events hosted by countries with a poor human-rights record? Where would you draw the line?
(For the stronger speakers) Daniel says the spotlight “exposes without punishing” — Qatar normalised within a year. If that is true, is there any responsible action left for fans, sponsors or athletes who object?
Homework (B2) — “My Take on the Trade-Off”
This homework finishes Task 3 of the Agency Loop. If Step 3 was squeezed in class, this is where you complete it.
Your task: Write a paragraph of 100–150 words (or record a 90-second voice note) answering this question:
Is hosting a mega-event mostly about looking good or doing good — and what is one thing that would change your answer?
What to include:
One sentence with your overall position (soft power, sportswashing, or “it depends”).
One sentence with a real example — Germany 2006, Qatar 2022, or another you know.
One sentence with the AI’s counter-point from Task 3 (”When I asked AI, it pointed out that…”).
One sentence saying what would change your mind.
Sentence starters if you need them:
Overall, I think hosting is mostly…
A clear example for me is…
When I challenged my view with AI, it argued that…
I would change my mind if…
How to submit: Send me your paragraph (or voice note) by Tuesday morning — WhatsApp or email is fine. We will open the next lesson by reading some of them aloud.
C1 version
Warm-up — Micro-Research Task (12 min)
Mega-events sit at the crossroads of money, image and politics. Before we read about that intersection, you will each become a mini-expert on one piece of it. Your trainer will assign you one of the following. Items 1–3 are core; 4–6 are stretch.
What “soft power” means, in one sentence (core)
What “sportswashing” means, plus one named example (core)
The single most expensive World Cup or Olympics ever held (core)
One sporting boycott from history and what it actually achieved (stretch)
Who is hosting the 2026 World Cup, and one fact about it (stretch)
Germany’s 2006 “Sommermärchen” — and the 2006 bid scandal — in two sentences (stretch)
Step 1 — Think first (1 min): Write down 2–3 things you already know or believe about your assigned item. Keywords or short phrases. This is your starting point — your own thinking comes first.
Step 2 — Research (2–3 min): Use any AI tool. Copy this prompt and fill in the gap:
LEVEL: C1
Context: I'm preparing a present-back for an English discussion on
soft power vs sportswashing: when a nation spends billions to host a
mega-event (World Cup, Olympics), is it genuine bridge-building soft
power or laundering a damaged reputation? The 2026 World Cup
(US/Canada/Mexico) is the live example. I'll deliver this to the
group in about 90 seconds and may be challenged on it.
My item: [MY ITEM]
Give me three facts, one anchor statistic (or, for a concept item,
one concrete example), and one trade-off or counter-position — in
the register a senior professional would use in a meeting. Keep it
under 200 words.Step 3 — Present (1–2 min each): Present your findings to the group.
Quick discussion (3 min):
Which item surprised you most? Why?
On a gut level: is hosting a mega-event a smart national investment, or an expensive vanity project? One sentence, one reason.
Language focus — win vs beat (6 min)
A fossilised error rooted in the German “gewinnen gegen” / “wir haben Brasilien gewonnen” surfaces in English as “we won against Brazil” or “we won Brazil” — both wrong. The verb is beat.
WIN takes a prize, a title or a competition · win a match, win a title, win a medal, win the World Cup, win a bid
BEAT takes an opponent, a rival or a record · beat Brazil, beat the favourites, beat the holders, beat the record
The pre-flight check: if the object is a prize or a competition → WIN; if the object is an opponent or a record → BEAT; never “win against.”
Bonus host-register verbs: to host / to stage / to bid for / to be awarded a tournament.
Your turn: Write one WIN sentence and one BEAT sentence in the soft-power context — for example, “Qatar won the bid to host the 2022 World Cup.” / “Argentina beat France on penalties.” Read both aloud.
Vocabulary (C1) — match the words to the definitions
Match the words and phrases (1–12) with the definitions (A–L).
soft power
sportswashing
to launder (a reputation)
the spotlight effect
fragile legitimacy
to conflate
the kafala system
wage theft
a slush fund
an indictment
hypocrisy
a supply chain
A. a secret reserve of money kept for bribes or dishonest deals
B. influence achieved through attraction and image rather than force or money
C. illegally withholding pay a worker has earned
D. to wrongly merge two separate things into one
E. using sport to clean up or distract from a damaged public image
F. condemning in others what you permit in yourself
G. the way hosting acts as a magnifying glass that exposes a host’s flaws as much as its strengths
H. a formal legal charge of a serious crime
I. to make a reputation appear clean and respectable despite a questionable source
J. the full network of factories and companies that make and deliver a product
K. a sponsorship system that ties migrant workers to a single employer
L. approval that looks solid but collapses under scrutiny or pressure
TASK 1 (C1) — Map Your Starting Position
This is the first step of the Agency Loop. Anchor your own thinking before the reading.
Step 1 — Alone (5 min): Using only what you know right now — from the micro-research, the vocabulary, and your own professional experience — write down 5–8 keywords or short phrases that capture your current position on this question:
When a nation spends billions to host a mega-event, is it building genuine soft power or laundering its reputation — and can you tell the difference from the outside?
Do not search or use any tools. This is your own thinking.
Step 2 — In pairs (5 min): Explain your position to your partner using your keywords. Try to use at least 3 of the new vocabulary items. Your partner listens and asks one follow-up question.
Step 3 — Reflect (3 min): Together, identify: What do you both agree on? Where do you disagree or feel uncertain? Write down one question you hope the reading will answer. Keep your keywords — you will need them later.
Reading: Looking Good or Doing Good?
(1) A woman in one of my groups flew to Qatar to look at the skyline. All those gleaming towers you see in the brochures, lit up against the desert at night. She got there, stepped outside, and discovered she couldn’t walk to them. No footpaths. No way to cross the city on foot at all. “I wanted to walk to see all the high buildings, and I couldn’t,” she told the room. “It’s a waste.” I’ve thought about that line for a week now, because it’s the whole story in miniature: the gap between the picture and the place. The brochure said world-class city; the pavement said get back in the car. The World Cup, the Olympics, the whole glittering circus of mega-events, lives precisely in that gap. Spend enough money and you can make anywhere look magnificent for three weeks. Whether anything underneath actually got better is a different question entirely.
(2) Here’s the thing, though. Every article you’ll read about this points the camera in the same direction: at the host. Qatar’s labour camps. Russia’s stadiums. And now, in 2026, America and its border policy. The host is always the villain, and there’s always a fresh one. I want to turn the camera around and point it at the stands. Because the more I taught this topic, the more I became convinced that the real hypocrite in this story isn’t the country spending the billions. It’s us — the people watching, complaining, and watching some more.
(3) Start with the vocabulary, because the vocabulary is where the argument hides. Soft power, a term coined by the political scientist Joseph Nye, is the ability to get what you want by attraction rather than coercion. A country builds it with its culture, its films, and, increasingly, its stadiums. The friendly story says a World Cup is bridge-building. Sportswashing is the cynical version of the same act — using sport to launder a reputation, to scrub the blood off the brand. So which is it? Does it work? The uncomfortable answer is: sometimes. Brand Finance’s Global Soft Power Index has Qatar climbing from 31st in 2020 to a peak of 21st in 2024 after hosting; Saudi Arabia rose from 26th to 18th over a similar stretch. By the numbers, the spending moved the needle.
(4) But scholars have spotted a counter-mechanism, and it’s the most interesting idea in the whole debate: the spotlight effect, or the paradox of fragile legitimacy. Hosting a mega-event is like switching on a giant magnifying glass. The light you wanted to flatter you also exposes everything you’d rather hide. During Qatar 2022, image gains depended heavily on what the media chose to cover, and human-rights reporting wiped them out. German panel research from 2023 found no lasting improvement in Qatar’s image at all. The spotlight you bought to make yourself look good is the same spotlight that can make the whole project backfire. Looking good, or doing good. Hold onto that, because we’re going to need it.
(5) You’ve probably heard that Qatar 2022 cost around $220 billion. It’s the figure everyone quotes, and it’s almost entirely misleading. The direct tournament cost — the eight stadiums — came in at roughly $8 billion; the organising committee’s own chief executive said as much. The other $210 billion or so paid for Qatar National Vision 2030: the Doha Metro, the airport expansion, the port, the roads, an entire new city. That programme was adopted in 2008, two years before Qatar even won the bid. Most of it would have been built whether the football came or not. The two figures get conflated constantly, and the confusion runs in a useful direction: quote the giant number and the “doing good” defence inflates automatically — look at all this legacy infrastructure! Except the tournament didn’t leave most of it behind. The country was building it anyway. The football just stood in front of it for the photo. And the question kept hammering: legacy infrastructure for whom? The woman who flew there had seen the highways and the buildings, but no way to walk between them.
(6) Then the human cost, which has to be handled precisely, because the loudest version of it is also the least accurate. You’ll have seen the figure of 6,500 deaths. That number is real, but it is a cumulative, all-cause tally of South Asian migrants in Qatar over an entire decade — old age, traffic accidents, illness, everything. It is not 6,500 people dying on World Cup building sites. The official figure for stadium-linked deaths is 37, of which 3 were classified as occupational, and that official figure is itself contested, because the state largely declined to investigate sudden cardiac deaths among young men working in extreme heat. Both numbers mislead in opposite directions; the honest position sits in the uncomfortable middle. What’s not in dispute is the kafala system that bound workers to a single employer, the wage theft, the recruitment fees that left men in debt before they’d lifted a single brick. Here is the one question I’ll put on the table and deliberately leave unanswered, because it’s the question the outrage almost never asks: Qatar’s minimum wage for those workers was about $275 a month, plus housing and food allowances. For a worker coming from a region where the baseline was closer to $140, was that grim, dangerous job still a step up from what home offered? You can argue it both ways, and you should. Comparative advantage doesn’t excuse coercion and debt bondage — and “better than home” is the oldest excuse exploitation has.
(7) And before any of us in Europe feels clean, look at the host everyone holds up as the good example. Germany 2006, the “Sommermärchen”, genuinely changed how Germans felt about waving their own flag, and gave the world the open-air “Fan Fest” every tournament has copied since. A real, warm, measurable win. Then the twist. In 2015, reporting revealed a €6.7 million slush fund moving through a Swiss law firm before the vote that awarded Germany the tournament. In June 2025, a Frankfurt court convicted the German football association of tax evasion over how that money was later disguised. Careful here: the courts did not prove the vote itself was bought; investigators couldn’t rule it out but lacked the evidence. What’s proven is the conviction for tax evasion. But even the cleanest host on the wall turns out to have had its hand somewhere near the till.
(8) So what does outrage achieve against all this? Historically, almost nothing. The 1980 Moscow boycott didn’t shorten the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan by a single day; the diplomatic boycotts of Beijing in 2008 and 2022 changed precisely no state policy. Even apartheid South Africa is more complicated than the myth: the sports boycott mattered, but it worked slowly and indirectly, clearing the path for the economic sanctions that did the heavy lifting. Sport on its own has a remarkably poor record of forcing anyone to change. And FIFA itself will talk you out of any clean outrage within a paragraph — an organisation with a documented quarter-century of corruption, from the 47-count US indictment in 2015 to the 350-page ethics report it quietly published as a 42-page summary that cleared everyone. A corrupt referee, a rigged history, and a long list of boycotts that punished only the athletes — and yet the tournament gets bigger every cycle.
(9) Here’s what I actually think, and you can take it or leave it. Qatar took its three weeks of bad press in 2022 and normalised within the year. Tourism held. Investment held. Saudi Arabia was handed 2034 essentially unopposed. The spotlight, it turns out, exposes without punishing. It shines, we gasp, and we change the channel. The uncomfortable truth isn’t that sportswashing works flawlessly. It’s that we let it work, because outrage is the cheapest thing we own. We complain about labour camps and corrupt federations, then watch the matches, book the flights, buy the jersey, and hand over the money. And the hypocrisy that should keep us up at night is our own. I’m typing this on a phone assembled in a factory I’d be genuinely upset to tour, and there’s a decent chance my t-shirt came down a supply chain I’d never dare inspect. The International Labour Organization estimates nearly 28 million people in forced labour, and the G20 imports something north of $468 billion a year in goods flagged as high-risk for it. The same public that wept over Qatari building sites keeps right on buying. I include myself in that.
(10) Which brings me, carefully, to 2026. The loudest story this summer is the host: the United States, a travel ban, fans from qualified nations locked out, a Somali referee named Omar Artan turned back at Miami airport on an unverified allegation his own government disputes, FIFA’s president handing the US president a freshly invented “Peace Prize” and pledging millions to a Gaza fund. The easy article writes itself: America is the new villain. I’m not going to write it — not because I’m defending any of it, but because I genuinely don’t think it’s my job, or yours, to sit in judgement on another democratically elected government’s border policy. Every border policy on earth is controversial by definition. The travel ban, for the record, was signed in June 2025 and expanded that December, before the tournament, and applies whether there’s football or not. Getting the dates right is what stops this from being a cheap shot. America here is exhibit Z, the latest in a very long line.
(11) Now the most important bit, because the argument so far can be misread as stop caring, consume, shut up — and that’s the opposite of what I mean. If you genuinely boycotted — turned the television off, skipped the travel, bought no jersey, planted no flag, and actually paid a price for your principle — then this isn’t aimed at you for a second. You’re the one person it spares. My target is the armchair critic who wants to perform outrage and collect the moral credit, without the cost of a single sacrifice. To that reader I’d say what I said to the rooms: care honestly. Either pay the real price of your principles, or stop pretending you have them. And if you won’t? That’s allowed too. It’s just a ball people kick around for fun, and some smart bloke figured out how to make money out of it. This year the games kick off so late that you’ll have no trouble finding a beer garden where the football isn’t blaring in your ear while you sit with a quiet evening beer and watch the light go. Either really switch it off, or enjoy the game and spare us the performance.
(≈ 1,795 words)
TASK 2 (C1) — Draft Your Argument
This is the third step of the Agency Loop — produce your own written position before testing it against AI.
Step 1 — Alone (8 min): Look at the keywords you wrote in Task 1 and the reading you just finished. Choose one of these positions:
Position A: Daniel is right — the real hypocrite is the spectator, not the host. Outrage is the cheapest thing we own; we complain and keep watching, so we let sportswashing work. “Care honestly, or stop pretending.”
Position B: Daniel is wrong — the host carries the primary responsibility. The state sets the labour rules, spends the billions and runs the corruption; “blame the audience” is a comfortable deflection that lets the powerful off the hook.
Position C: The framing itself is the problem — every host, democratic or authoritarian, is buying image; the useful question is not “soft power or sportswashing?” but “what concrete legacy is left, and who carries the bill?”
Write a short paragraph (6–8 sentences) arguing for your chosen position. Use evidence from the reading and at least 4 vocabulary items. No AI assistance.
Step 2 — In pairs (3 min): Read your paragraph aloud to your partner. Your partner identifies one point that was convincing, and one point that felt weak or unsupported. Note the feedback. Keep your written paragraph — you will revise it in Task 3.
Comprehension questions (C1)
What does the author mean by “the gap between the picture and the place,” and how does the Qatar trip in his opening illustrate it? (Paragraphs 1–5)
The author “turns the camera around.” Away from whom, and towards whom — and what is his central claim about where the real hypocrisy lies? (Paragraphs 2, 9)
The reading insists the “6,500 deaths” figure and the migrant-wage comparison must be handled “precisely.” What exactly does it say about each — and why does the author leave the wage question unanswered? (Paragraph 6)
Why does the author refuse to write the “America is the new villain” article about 2026 — and what factual point about the travel ban’s dates does he insist on? (Paragraph 10)
The author ends with a demand: “care honestly.” Who is the demand aimed at, who is explicitly spared, and what are the two honest options he says you must “pick one” of? (Paragraph 11)
TASK 3 (C1) — Challenge and Finalise
This is the fourth and fifth steps of the Agency Loop. Use AI to stress-test your draft, then revise and present.
Step 1 — Alone (5 min): Take the paragraph you wrote in Task 2. Open an AI tool (ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini — whatever you use). Paste your paragraph and ask it to steelman the opposing case:
Here is my position on whether hosting a mega-event is soft
power or sportswashing: [PASTE YOUR DRAFT]. Steelman the
strongest objection to it — argue against me as persuasively
as a serious, well-informed opponent would, in four or five
sentences. Then tell me the single most important fact or
example I am ignoring.Read the AI’s response carefully. Highlight one challenge you think is valid and one you disagree with.
Step 2 — Revise and present (7 min): Revise your paragraph into a final version (6–10 sentences) that directly addresses the strongest counter-argument. You may keep, change or strengthen your original position — but you must engage with the criticism. Then present your final briefing note to the group (2 minutes each).
Quick reflection (3 min):
What did the AI flag that you had genuinely missed?
What did you choose to keep despite the AI’s objection — and why?
Did anyone change their overall position after the AI challenge?
Discussion (C1)
Daniel’s central claim is that the real hypocrite is not the host but the spectator. Where is he wrong? Build the strongest case you can that the host — the state spending the billions and setting the labour rules — carries the primary responsibility, and that “blame the audience” is a deflection.
The phone-and-t-shirt parallel does a lot of work in this piece. Is consuming a product made under bad conditions genuinely equivalent to actively watching, travelling to and funding a mega-event — or is Daniel flattening an important difference to land his point?
German panel data found no durable image improvement for Qatar, yet a global index recorded a rise. When two credible measures disagree, how should a thinking professional decide what to believe?
Daniel says the spotlight “exposes without punishing” and that outrage is “the cheapest thing we own.” If boycotts rarely work, is there any responsible course of action left for citizens, sponsors or athletes who object — or has he talked you into a counsel of despair he himself says he doesn’t intend?
Daniel’s demand is “care honestly — pay the price of your principles, or stop pretending you have them.” Is this a fair binary, or a false one? Can a person legitimately watch the World Cup, enjoy it, and keep criticising the host without being a hypocrite?
On 2026, Daniel deliberately takes no side on the US border policy, calling it “exhibit Z” and insisting the dates make it not a cheap shot. Is that even-handedness intellectually honest — or a way of avoiding a judgement the evidence actually invites?
Imagine it is 2040 and someone writes the history of sport and soft power in our decade. Which host’s bet will look the smartest — and whose will look like the most expensive mistake? Defend your answer.
Homework (C1) — “The Case I Can Defend” Written Position
This homework completes the full Agency Loop cycle asynchronously. Task 3 in class is usually squeezed — this is where you finish it properly.
Your task: Write a 200–300 word position answering this prompt:
“Pick ONE: (a) Should democracies refuse to compete in tournaments hosted by authoritarian states? OR (b) Is ‘sportswashing’ a real phenomenon or a lazy media label? Argue a clear position — but build it on evidence from the reading, not on instinct. Anticipate, and answer, the strongest objection a well-informed opponent would raise.”
Agency Loop steps 4–5 (required):
Draft it yourself first. No AI for the first version. Use specific evidence from the reading — the Qatar index rise and the German panel data, the $8bn-vs-$220bn distinction, the boycott record, Germany 2006. Be concrete; avoid slogans.
Challenge with AI. Paste your draft into an AI tool with this prompt:
Here is my written position on sportswashing: [PASTE].
Stress-test it. (1) What is the single strongest counter-argument,
and where is my own evidence weakest? (2) Am I overstating or
understating any factual claim — especially on costs, deaths, or
image data? (3) Am I being even-handed across different host
countries, or am I letting one off and singling another out?
Do not flatter me. Cite examples where you can.Revise. Rewrite your position so it directly engages the strongest counter-argument. Add a one-sentence note at the end: “The AI pushed back on X. I held my position because…” or “The AI changed my mind on Y because…”
How to submit: Send me your revised position by Tuesday morning — email or shared doc. We will open the next lesson with two or three of them, read aloud by their authors.
Answer keys
B1 vocabulary
1 → D | 2 → F | 3 → A | 4 → G | 5 → C | 6 → H | 7 → E | 8 → B
B2 vocabulary
1 → B | 2 → E | 3 → G | 4 → I | 5 → A | 6 → H | 7 → D | 8 → C | 9 → J | 10 → F
C1 vocabulary
1 → B | 2 → E | 3 → I | 4 → G | 5 → L | 6 → D | 7 → K | 8 → C | 9 → A | 10 → H | 11 → F | 12 → J
B1 comprehension — model answers
The woman wanted to walk and see the tall, shining towers (the skyline) from the brochures. She could not do it because there were no footpaths — no way to walk to them. She said: “It’s a waste.” The picture looked great, but the real place was different.
Soft power means power by being liked — a country makes itself look modern and friendly so others admire it. Sportswashing means using a big sports event to look good and to hide problems at home.
The number is wrong because the stadiums only cost about $8 billion. Most of the money paid for roads, trains and an airport, which Qatar had planned years before — even before they won the World Cup. The country was building it anyway; the football just stood in front of it for the photo.
He means the spectators (us) are part of the problem, not only the host country. We complain that it is terrible, but then we keep watching, buy the shirt and book the flight. He adds that we are not clean either — his own phone and t-shirt come from factories and supply chains he would not want to check. So we let it happen.
His idea is “care honestly.” If you really care about the problems, then stop watching and pay the price (give something up). If you do not really care, that is okay too — it is just a game. Just be honest about which one you are: don’t complain and keep watching at the same time.
B2 comprehension — model answers
A woman in one of the groups flew to Qatar to see the gleaming skyline from the brochures, but found there were no footpaths and no way to walk to the towers — “It’s a waste.” The image was magnificent; the reality on the ground did not match it. That gap between the picture and the place is the whole argument in miniature: spend enough and anywhere looks magnificent for three weeks, but that doesn’t mean anything underneath improved.
Away from the host (the country spending the billions — Qatar, Russia, America in 2026, always cast as the villain) and towards the stands — us, the spectators. The author does this because he thinks the real hypocrite is the audience: we complain about labour camps and corruption, then watch the matches, book the flights and buy the jersey anyway. The spotlight exposes without punishing, and we let sportswashing work because outrage is cheap.
The spotlight effect is the way hosting acts like a giant magnifying glass: the attention you wanted to flatter you also exposes the things you’d rather hide, so the project can backfire. German research in 2023 found no lasting improvement in Qatar’s image — human-rights and migrant-labour coverage dominated instead.
Because most of the “$220 billion” was a national development plan (metros, an airport, roads) adopted in 2008, two years before Qatar won the bid — the country was building it anyway. The direct cost of the stadiums was closer to $8 billion; the football “just stood in front of” the infrastructure for the photo.
It means the audience is more hypocritical than the host. The author admits he is typing on a phone from a factory he’d hate to tour and wearing a t-shirt off a supply chain he’d never dare inspect — while nearly 28 million people are in forced labour and the G20 imports over $468 billion a year in high-risk goods. The same public that wept over Qatari building sites keeps right on buying, himself included. Pointing only at the host keeps the spotlight away from the stands.
C1 comprehension — model answers
The “gap between the picture and the place” is the distance between the glossy image a mega-event projects and the reality underneath it. The woman in the opening flew to Qatar to see the gleaming skyline from the brochures, then discovered there were no footpaths and no way to walk to the towers at all — “It’s a waste.” The brochure said world-class city; the pavement said get back in the car. The author uses it as the whole story in miniature: spend enough money and anywhere can look magnificent for three weeks, but whether anything underneath actually improved is a separate question.
He turns the camera away from the host (the country spending the billions — Qatar, Russia, America in 2026, always “the villain”) and towards the stands — us, the spectators. His central claim is that the real hypocrite isn’t the host but the audience: we complain about labour camps and corrupt federations, then watch the matches, book the flights and buy the jersey anyway. The spotlight “exposes without punishing,” and we let sportswashing work because outrage is the cheapest thing we own.
On the “6,500 deaths” figure: it is real but is a cumulative, all-cause tally of South Asian migrants in Qatar over a decade (old age, traffic, illness), not deaths on World Cup sites; the official stadium-linked figure is 37, of which 3 were occupational, and even that is contested because the state didn’t investigate sudden cardiac deaths in extreme heat — both numbers mislead in opposite directions. On wages: Qatar’s minimum was about $275/month versus a home baseline nearer $140, so it may have been “a step up” — but the author leaves it unanswered on purpose, because comparative advantage doesn’t excuse coercion and debt bondage, and “better than home” is “the oldest excuse exploitation has.” The point is to hold the tension open, not close it.
He refuses because he doesn’t think it’s his job, or the reader’s, to sit in judgement on another democratically elected government’s border policy — every border policy is controversial by definition. The factual point he insists on is the dates: the travel ban was signed in June 2025 and expanded that December, before the tournament, and applies whether there’s football or not. Getting the dates right is “what stops this from being a cheap shot.” America here is “exhibit Z,” the latest instance of the same cycle, not a special villain.
The demand is aimed at the “armchair critic” who wants to perform outrage and collect the moral credit without paying any price. The reader explicitly spared is the one who genuinely boycotted — turned off the TV, skipped the travel, bought no jersey, and actually paid a price for the principle. The two honest options you must pick between: genuinely opt out, or enjoy your summer — but you don’t get to do both and still perform disgust. “Either pay the real price of your principles, or stop pretending you have them.”
A note from the author
This lesson was generated, taught, refined and published as part of a weekly cycle: I pick a topic that is shaping the world my clients actually live in, build a lesson, teach it across my groups for one week, then write the article you can read alongside it. The article captures what emerged when real professionals — managers, engineers, sales leads, business unit heads — wrestled with the topic in their own English. The lesson lets you (and your participants, and your colleagues) do the same.
On this topic in particular, my job in the room is to hold both sides open, not to push a verdict — and the lesson is built to do the same. If you are an English teacher and you find it useful, please share it. If you are a learner and you want to discuss the topic in a real conversation, tell me what you think — I read every reply.
Read the advanced companion article → [The Audience Is Guilty — link]
Read the intermediate companion article → [The Audience Is Guilty — link]