So, England's bid wasn't good enough for the 2018 World Cup. Or was it? No, no it wasn't. They lost.
We can look at the factors for the reasons why this was the case; the Panorama program "exposing" the "shocking" nature of how Fifa is run (this is not old news; Andrew Jennings' book on Fifa's corruption deals with the same issues as the BBC program did on Monday evening and was first published in 2006); the choice of people to speak in Zurich for the presentation - selecting David Beckham to speak (like, in sentences and that) is like asking a racehorse to prepare a three-course meal; There are a few things which I don't get; firstly, everyone seems surprised that the two countries with the most money/oil/contacts won (the great footballing nation of Qatar got the 2022 World Cup). Red-tops (and worryingly, some broadsheets) shouted 'fix' because England didn't win. Although England's bid was technically sound, it lacked the prime objective which Fifa tournaments - and especially Sepp Blatter - crave; a legacy.
It's always been a "thing" of Sepp Blatter's, this legacy idea. For Blatter, a World Cup should be more than a summer football tournament. The French World Cup of 1998 unified a country dealing with racial tension thanks to Zinedine Zidane's efforts for the hosts. In 2002, South Korea and Japan hosted the first World Cup to happen in Asia. This summer was the African equivalent in South Africa, and 2018 will be the first World Cup for a post-Soviet nation. Qatar will be the first Islamic state to stage the tournament. To put briefly, Blatter wants a lasting legacy for the countries involved, but this cannot apply to a first world country like England. Perhaps more significantly, Blatter wants a legacy for himself too.
That's not to say money is not important, because it bloody is. Fifa spin as much money out of these tournaments as they can; merchandise, sponsorship, television rights and ticket sales, for instance. They expect all this whilst contributing nothing towards the infrastructures needed for hosting a competition as big as the World Cup; transport links, accommodation and security are all expected to be covered for by the national Government. Fifa love football. But they love profit too. And so do the members of their board, it seems. Bribery and what not, dare I say, are not unusual in the corridors of power in Zurich. It may be just a coincidence Russia was branded a "mafia state" by the WikiLeaks scandal they same day their bid won. Of course, it may not be, because everyone loves a conspiracy.
England's bid wasn't exactly squeaky-clean either. In fact, the campaign team's treatment of the influential Jack Warner is no different to the way Vladimir Putin has been accused of treating Silvio Berlusconi in the recent WikiLeaks scandal. The FA, apparently, lavished him and his wife with gifts to help "persuade" him to vote for the English bid. Remember England playing that rather pointless friendly against Trinidad and Tobago in 2008? Probably not, it's not memorable and if memory serves me right it was unofficial to everyone except Dean Ashton, who still believes he has an England cap. Either way, the English bid wasn't as perfect as everyone says it is, it's just that it used its influence in the wrong way. What you need is a Prime Minister who knows judo. And Gazprom. That helps too.
DC
x
No comments:
Post a Comment