Whether it is Valletta vs Floriana at the stadium or Real Madrid vs Bayern Munich on TV, football remains in demand. Then there’s the banter at the bar: pesudo-technical assessments of players’ and teams’ performances, authoritative-sounding judgments on multi-million transfer deals, cheeky jibes on trophies won (or not). But it probably stops at that.
Most don’t give a hoot whether a match could possibly be fixed. The game’s entertainment value remains. It’s the same as enjoying a Hollywood blockbuster. Nor do many of us apparently care if Brasil is spending billions of dollars while Brasilians struggle to get by. We've been there already. Despite FIFA's claim that host countries benefit from big tournaments, an audit on South Africa's 2010 World Cup showed it cost the taxpayers £3bn for a return of £323m, followed by an economic downturn.
Mistrust in the way football is run globally is certainly not a recent phenomenon. Heaps of books have been written and countless column-inches have been dedicated by newspaper editors to charges of corruption, nepotism, and so many acts of Macchiavellian proportion which have taken place at FIFA. This organisation manages a product that has untold global demand. Its flagship event, the World Cup is a guarantee of massive financial turnover.
The latest revelations of The Sunday Times have taken allegations – if ever there was the need – to unprecedented, incontestable level. The London newspaper is reportedly in possession of millions (their term) of emails that could prove that the bidding process to choose Qatar as the host country for the World Cup in 2022 was fraught with irregularities through a network of payments to buy the votes of a number of FIFA delegates, mostly representing developing countries.
Yes, in case you never cared, these decisions are voted on by just 209 delegates, each representing a national football association. The agenda is steered by an Executive Committee of 28 persons, some of whom have managed to remain glued to their seats for decades.
FIFA is based in Zurich as a non-profit organisation. And yet it possesses reserves of $1.5 billion. Why an international organisation with a role to promote and develop the game of football should pile up such amounts of money is beyond me. Until 2000 corruption of foreign public agents was not prosecuted in Switzerland and offering 'commercial' bribes was an accepted way of doing business. If that was not enough, organisations such as FIFA had their bribes deducted from tax. Google it if you don't take my word for it.
 |
| Such a universal game cannot be run like a fiefdom. |
FIFA President Sepp Blatter has been around since the 1970s, first as FIFA Technical Director, then as General Secretary for 17 years before taking his current role in 1998. Just in case that was not enough, he intends to run again for re-election (re-investiture might be a better word). "I am ready to continue my mission" he was reported saying.
Recently he also admitted that choosing Qatar to host the World Cup might have been a mistake. Whether he had an inkling (or something more than that) that the decision might have to be revisited remains to be seen.
The saga goes on. The countries which competed in the bidding with Qatar, including England and Australia, are now calling for FIFA to come clean. Their top politicians are doing their best to put pressure on FIFA. The UK Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg described the recent claims as shocking and Prime Minister David Cameron hinted that the voting may have to be held again.
To add more drama, a few days before the start of the World Cup in Brasil, the outcome of an investigation into the matter is expected to be unveiled. The investigation commenced some 3 years ago and is led by former US federal prosecutor Michael Garcia (he was at one point tipped to head the FBI). Garcia was due to quiz members of the Qatar 2022 organising committee this week. Now, following the latest raft of allegations, it is still to be seen whether the meeting will take place and, above all, whether he will be taking all the new evidence into consideration.
Imagine if, instead of all this, football can be governed by a more open organisation that gives voice to its consumers, i.e. the fans, or at least those of them who bother enough. Imagine if, instead of crippling whole economies to organise an ego-boosting mega event for just one month every four years, it had to fulfil a more direct and concrete social role by using the opportunity to aid those very countries where the tournament is held. Imagine if it had to invert its way of distributing its huge proceeds by pumping the bulk of the money into basic infrastructure for kids playing football all over the world. Yes, FIFA does distribute money for grassroots football, but follow-up is lacking and cases of money ending up in people's pockets are not unheard of.
I think we should start caring a bit more. This is not just a game any longer.
No comments:
Post a Comment