SSome lessons, it seems, are never learned. Gareth Southgate was characteristically measured in his response to Friday’s World Cup draw, but most seemed to toe Kyle Walker’s line that ‘you have to be happy with the teams we have drawn’.

The triumphalism was not as strident as before the 2010 World Cup, but if other teams are truly inspired by the misunderstood ironies of Three Lions, England’s group stage opponents will rage at some Saturday morning headlines.

Regardless of the dangers of chauvinistic complacency, it’s not an easy draw. “Some of the ties are potentially trickier than just ranking,” Southgate said, but ranking is tricky enough. According to the Fifa ranking, this is the most difficult group.

This is partly a consequence of uncertainty over the final European squad due to postponements caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This unknown team was classified as a Pot 4 team in the draw, but of the three teams involved, only Scotland would be a Pot 4 team; Wales and Ukraine would have been in Pot 3.

But here we are – already – talking about football details. That’s what sportwashing does and why it’s so insidious, infecting a thing we love so that we end up ignoring the sordid horror of the spectacle.

England’s first Group B game will be played at the Khalifa Stadium, where British construction worker Zac Cox died in 2017. It was one of three work-related fatalities on construction sites linked at the World Cup recognized by the Qatari authorities, although Amnesty International doubts these figures.

There have been at least 6,500 deaths of migrant workers on infrastructure projects in Qatar. Turns out they paid over £1 billion for the privilege. When Malcolm Bidali, a Kenyan worker, raised concerns about working conditions, he was held in solitary confinement for a month before being allowed to leave Qatar two months later after paying a fine for spreading “fake news”. Abdullah Ibhais is still in prison after defending migrant workers.

Emphasis was placed on Qatar’s culture of hospitality. Wealthy Europeans certainly seem to appreciate it. But LGBTQ+ lobby groups are still waiting for basic assurances. This week, Major General Abdulaziz Abdullah Al Ansari, chairman of Qatar’s national counterterrorism committee, said rainbow flags could be confiscated to “protect” the person wearing them.

This engenders little confidence and appears to be in direct contradiction to Regulations 15 and 23 of FIFA’s statutes, which stipulate the responsibility of members and confederations “to prohibit all forms of discrimination”. Regulation 4 clearly states that includes “sex” and “sexual orientation”.

It is striking how aggressive the Qatari tone has been in recent days, Supreme Committee for Delivery and Legacy Secretary General Hassan al-Thawadi told Football Federation of Norway President Lise Klaveness , to “educate” herself after suggesting that “injured migrant workers, the families of those who died, need to be cared for”.

This education process could be easier if journalists – like the Norwegian film crew arrested last November – were not intimidated when they tried to report on these issues. If this is the approach when he has had time to prepare a PR strategy, you wonder what will happen in the chaos of the event.

A Honduran delegate insisted that this was neither the time nor the place for such talks. But if not now, when? It is not those who point the finger at the outrages that taint the World Cup. And if that means awkward gear changes, that’s the nature of this tournament.

And so back to the group. As Southgate pointed out, this third game against the UEFA Path A winners will be tough whoever qualifies. It could be Ukraine who, carrying all the emotions of war and fueled by a sense of fighting for a cause, will be very different from the England side beaten 4-0 at Euro 2020.

Or it could be a British team. Even at Wembley last June, a derby against Scotland brought England’s worst performance in their run to the final.

Nor does history offer much reason for optimism against the United States, with England failing to win their previous two World Cup encounters. There was the Rob Green howl and the 1-1 draw at Rustenburg in 2010, the start of what, for at least four years, seemed a particularly bleak campaign. Sixty years ago, it was the 1-0 defeat in Belo Horizonte. The United States was then a motley group of largely amateur players, few of whom would qualify under modern nationality regulations. Now they have probably the most promising squad in their history, with players who are regulars at Chelsea, Juventus, Borussia Dortmund and Barcelona.

England start against Iran, a country they have never played. The UK imposed sanctions on Iran in 2007 and although the release of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and Anoosheh Ashoori last month removes an immediate flashpoint, there will inevitably be political tensions.

Iran are probably not the 21st best team in the world, even if that’s what the Fifa rankings say. They have won two games in the World Cup, but one of them was against the United States in 1998. They are solid and well organised, conceding four goals in 10 games in the third round of the Asian qualifiers.

Group of death? Well, in this World Cup they all are, and the metaphor should probably be removed for taste. Complex and confusing political group? Well, in the modern era, obviously. It’s likely England will come through, it will be a grind and there will be great outpourings of frustration along the way, talk about the need to unleash this great generation of attacking talent, based in part on underestimating opponents of England.

The Fiver: Sign up and receive our daily football email.

None of this will matter because World Cups are not won in the group stage but in knockout matches against the elite and none of this will matter because football should not not be a tool of propaganda and its great tournaments should not be made possible by exploited labor.