Some argue that trouble was forseeable when soccer's world governing body, FIFA, announced that the locations for two successive World Cups would be decided on one day. The Cup, said to be the biggest sporting spectacle in the world, is big business, and many believe that the beautiful game's showpiece has for some time been hijacked by both commercial and personal interests rather than promotion of the game itself. Those beliefs, whether rightly or wrongly, will only gain steam after Russia and Qatar were affirmed as the hosts of the Cup in 2018 and 2022, respectively.
On one hand, sending the tournament to these locations fits neatly with FIFA's recent strategy to use its showpiece to promote the game in developing countries. The latest edition this past summer in South Africa confirmed the possibility that a developing country with an infrastructure in need of improvement can, with enough planning, put on a successful event. Considering that Brazil has already been confirmed as the host for 2014 lends support to this line of reasoning.
However, with an opaque voting process, allegations of morally, if not illegally corrupt backroom dealings and proof of even worse emerging over recent weeks there is enough material for speculation that one doesn't need to be a conspiracy theorist to question FIFA's process. Indeed, some are unfavorably comparing the latest round of voting to the Salt Lake City Olympic Scandal, where selection committee members were found to have recieved lavish gifts during the bidding process. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) was forced to evaluate, and eventually change, its process in the aftermath.
The complaints from observers are as follows; first, the process itself, with a lack of visibility into who on the Executive Committee is voting for particular bids, invites shady backscratching that doesn't necessarily translate into votes for the best bids. A multi-round vote process in the absence of a clear favorite, and holding votes for multiple Cups on one day would naturally amplify this problem. Second, and more alarmingly considering that trading votes is not necessarily disallowed under FIFA rules, is the proof of outright bribery and corruption in the process which has been brushed aside and even ignored by FIFA.
Much of the proof of outright violations comes from investigative journalism efforts in the UK. This led to two Executive Committee members being dropped within the past few months and heated discussions over further infractions which have seemingly been ignored by the federation more recently. Though it may seem to be a simple matter of sour grapes to some, many in England are even claiming that the nation's poor showing in the bid process could be a result of its media's exposure of the irregularities, which would be a further sign of an arrogance by FIFA and its members.
Not everything about the 2018/2022 bidding and voting process was illegal or against FIFA rules. However, this does not make the process any more pure. Additionally, proof of outright corruption muddied the process further. Both the losing countries and fans have legitimate reasons to feel cheated. Though it is too late for the process to be cleaned up and made transparent for this go-round, FIFA should take the scrutiny and make a positive out of it, like the IOC after Salt Lake City, rather than continuing its arrogant attitude of infallibility. Nothing less than the future of the world's game is at stake.
UPDATE: This issue hasn't died yet, and it is unlikely that we will all hear the last word on it until the golden cup is raised in July 2022. Despite claims of transparency by some members, it does seem that at least some allegation of impropriety have a foundation as FIFA Vice President Jack Warner was perfectly clear that the English media's reports of corruption in the bid process damned the nation's bid. The message is very clearly that discovering corruption creates embarrasment for FIFA, so if you do so, you will be punished. Readers can make their own logical leap from this statement, but your author for one thinks that this is proof enough that the bid process is inherently 'shady' if not outright corrupt.
No comments:
Post a Comment