That's complete nonsense though. That's like saying that pair of trainers you own means you support child labour and exploitation.
These snippets of whataboutery are the 'complete nonsense', because they always defer the argument from necessity.
Shows have to be worn in society, to enter premises, to protect feet et al. A consumer's economic situation coerces choice, which will restrict one to a pair crafted via exploited labour (it's another argument about how all labour is exploitative, but we'll stay on point).
Another one is petrol. You see a person requiring medical assistance, so ring an ambulance. What does the ambulance run on? What happens if you don't call it for that reason? You get the picture.
Of course, this situationism does not exonerate indulgence, but that is a facet of sports-washing in football. Football is an indulgence. You don't 'need' it as such, and nothing is coercing you into endorsing it (nothing at all like the physical real-time situations described in the above scenarios, anyway).
Anyway, some of the polls have suggested the majority wanted Qatar, so we as a whole cannot pontificate on the matter, but let's not indulge false equivalences to pretend sports-washing is not still a serious problem.