Basic HTML Version
touchline
The journal of spor t & r isk with an international perspective
Issue 8
Sportscover endeavours to ensure that the information contained in touchline is correct at the time of publication, and cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions made.
For information on advertising in touchline, email us at touchline@sportscover.com
Steve Boucher
touchline@sportscover.com
Contents
Don’t bore us with facts about which
is the best country to host the World
Cup… that won’t influence our vote!
FIFA’s decision to award the 2018 and
2022 World Cups to Russia and Qatar
has been met with widespread criticism
and incredulity. Former Belgian star
Marc Wilmots said that he thought the
decision was a negative one for football,
labelling the choice of Russia as political
and Qatar economic, with football the
loser.
It is almost incomprehensible that
England and Australia, who were
amongst the bid favourites in their
respective groups, were eliminated in
the first round. Both countries, together
with the USA, put forward credible,
extremely low risk and professional bids
which won plaudits from FIFA in public,
but behind closed doors the voting
was entirely different with promised
votes not materialising. Also, with FIFA
stating a preference for single bidding
nations, it seems very strange that
England were eliminated before the
dual bidding nations of Spain/Portugal
and Netherlands/Belgium. It seems that
delegates are not following FIFA policy.
How much damage was done to
England’s bid by the controversy
surrounding the British media’s
investigation into vote rigging and bribes
by FIFA delegates is unclear. Michel
Platini, President of UEFA, insisted
it would not alter members’ votes or
wreck England’s chances. But he did
claim that the British media’s arduous
relationship with FIFA could jeopardise
England’s chances of success. That is a
concern because we would expect high
profile major international bodies to be
supporters of human rights, including
the freedom of speech and freedom of
the press.
The choice of Russia and Qatar is what
some FIFA executives have called the
‘Doomsday Scenario’. Whilst Russia
was one of the favourites in the 2018
race it had to overcome concerns
about logistics - its size and lack of
infrastructure could cause big issues for
fans – and whether it would build the
required stadia.
Similarly, concerns exist regarding why
the Qatar bid, the only one with a ‘’high
risk’’ rating from FIFA, won through
despite what appeared to be much
better options for FIFA, football and the
fans. Qatar, ranked 113th in the FIFA
rankings, has a population of just over
1.5 million, with little footballing tradition.
It has huge issues such as climate (often
over 50 degrees Centigrade in June/
July), no suitable stadia at present,
a lack of hotel accommodation and
issues with human rights. It is difficult to
see how a World Cup in Qatar can be
a fun-filled sporting spectacle – I doubt
that there will be many street parties!
It now appears that the running of two
World Cups together was a mistake
which could have led to deals being
done between countries - Qatar was
investigated by FIFA for allegations
it planned to trade blocs of votes with
2018 bidder Spain-Portugal. Although
there was no evidence found of this
happening, the risk is too great so
this should not be allowed to happen
again.
Duncan White wrote in the UK Daily
Telegraph, “In reality, FIFA has long
put money ahead of football. Qatar
2022 marks the moment they stopped
pretending otherwise.”
Perhaps now is the time for change to
the entire bidding process. In future
the process needs to be transparent
and free from the possible taint of
corruption. Future tournaments must
be given to the countries with the best
bids irrespective of political and financial
influence.
December 2010
“The World Cup is
being held
where!
?”
3
