Well isn't that hypocrisy at it's best.
For the past two years, bidding teams from England, Spain/Portugal, Russia, Holland/Belgium, and Australia, Japan, United States, South Korea and Qatar, have all been fighting for the right to host the 2018 and 2022 World Cups respectively. Hours of hard work, sleepless nights, and millions of dollars have been spent, all in the belief that the best bid would prevail. The bidding process is not a simple process by any means, with countries being judged on many aspects, ranging from their technical ability, the facilities, stadia, hotels, transport system, and the economic effects of hosting the biggest tournament in the world.
For those of you that don't know how this process works, there are a few stages each bidding country has to go through and in March 2009, eleven bids from thirteen countries were received. Initially both the 2018 and 2022 World Cups were available to all bidding nations, but this later changed, and the 2018 World Cup it was decided, would be given to a European nation, leaving the other nations to battle it out for 2022. Once all the bidding nations stated their intentions, they were required to submit full details of their bid to FIFA by 14 May 2010. Each country would then get the opportunity to host Sepp Blatter (FIFA's President) and his team of FIFA inspectors a few months later in July. During a four-day tour, the bidding nation had a chance to show the FIFA inspectors what their bid was all about, and take them to each city that would be hosting the games should they win. FIFA was to grade each countries' bid based on their risk-level for different areas. By September 17th all the bidding nations had been given their chance to show what their country had to offer, and thus the wait was on until the last few weeks of November, when the 24-FIFA Executive members would really be influenced by last minute appeals.
For the 2018 World Cup, there were four bids remaining by the end of the FIFA Inspections - Russia, England, and joint bids from Spain/Portugal and Holland/Belgium. The ratings given by FIFA after bid submissions, and FIFA inspections were as follows:
England - Lowest Risk
Spain/Portugal - Also Low Risk
Holland/Belgium - Medium Risk
Russia - High Risk
For the 2022 World Cup, the following five nations remained after inspections and these were their results:
Australia - Lowest Risk (joint)
United States - Lowest Risk (joint)
South Korea - Medium Risk
Japan - Medium Risk
Qatar - High Risk
Now, just because you receive a high rating, or conversely a low one, does not mean your are automatically out of the race, because you have from Sept.17th until Dec. 2nd to prove you can indeed fix whatever FIFA deemed unsuitable in your bid. However, the whole point of bidding, is that the nation best suited to host the World Cup, according to their bid, will win the most votes.
This is where the plot thickens. England in particular, raised questions about the legitimacy of the whole voting process. FIFA is an organization that has no ties to any government, and as such, they can do pretty much whatever they like in some respects. England has a free media, and in this way FIFA and the English Media are not too different, as the media can write and say what and when it wishes. This is exactly what they did, beginning with a published recording of Lord Triesman (English Football Association Chairman) suggesting that Spain and Qatar were in cahoots, agreeing to vote for each other come voting time in December. The story was published in The Sunday Times in England, and the result was that Lord Triesman had to step down as chairman, to avoid the English bid being eliminated on the basis of slander. By this time the idea that FIFA executives were compromised, was already out in the public domain, and more controversy was to follow.
The BBC, a publicly funded organization, has the right to air any program, or investigative journalism piece, whenever they feel fit to do so. Given the allegations made by the Chairman of English Football, there was already a feeling his comments may have somewhat of a negative effect on the English World Cup bid, by giving FIFA a bad image. Why this is exactly, I do not know. What a country's media write, or broadcast, should not have an effect on a bid, over which they have no influence. If FIFA weren't happy with those revelations, then a Panorama program, broadcast three days before the final vote, would surely give Sepp Blatter a sleepless night or two. Panorama suggested that for years FIFA's voting system has been unjust, and that certain members of the executive panel had been taking various forms of bribes, in return for their votes. While the English Bid CEO Andy Anson agreed that the timing of these journalistic pieces were perhaps “a little unhelpful”, he saw no reason why media output beyond his control should affect England’s bid, considering the strong reviews it received, and thus was fairly confident of their chances.
Voting Day. December 2nd marked the day FIFA would decide who gains the most votes. With two of the executive committee members suspended due to the allegations made by The Sunday Times and BBC's Panorama, only 22 voters remained. Each bid team gave final presentations only hours before the final votes were taken, giving them one last chance to press their case. As Sepp Blatter took to the stage in Zurich, where the bid process came to its climax, tension filled the room. Mr. Blatter opened the first envelope containing the winners for the 2018 World Cup bid, at approximately 15:00 GMT. The winner, to everyone's surprise, was Russia. Disappointment could not hidden on the faces of the other bid teams, who obviously thought they had done enough to win themselves. If Russia was a surprise, due to its bid risk-level and the absence of Vladimir Putin, then the result for the 2022 World Cup bid was to create even greater shock, with Qatar announced as winners.
I would congratulate these two countries, and wish them the very best in their endeavors to host an exciting and memorable World Cup - but this is not the issue at hand. One cannot fault Russia or Qatar for their bids, as both have promising aspects, and Qatar in particular seem to be planning something rather special. However, one must ask the question as to why these two nations were actually picked. The whole point of having a bidding process is to establish who has the strongest bid to hold the best World Cup, yet this is not how the votes were cast. Even more disturbing, are the statistics released, showing how the votes were distributed. England, having received the strongest technical bid, and having been told their bid presentation was among the best, only received 2 of the 22 votes. Australia, also considered to be one of the favorites for 2022, received only ONE vote from 22.
This has sparked mass criticism of FIFA, suggesting that the bidding process is indeed not fair, and that the decision was in fact made days in advance. Anson, England's bid CEO, was in utter disbelief that his bid received such a poor backing, especially considering at least five executive committee members had promised their support to him, only hours before the vote. Anson says, "If you look at the technical process, the people who got the best reviews went out earliest, while the people who get the toughest reviews seem to have won...The technical report is £3m down the drain by the looks of it. We spent £3m on it and it was the best one. The two bids with the worst technical reports won." Anson continued, "There were other votes we thought we were going to get that would have taken us way into the second round and beyond, but some of those didn't materialize, I don't know which ones. When people look you in the eye and promise you something, you hope they live up to their word, but clearly that hasn't happened."
So what are the reasons behind this? Why would executive committee members pledge their allegiance to one bid, and within hours change their mind? Sepp Blatter may well be the reason. It is no secret that the FIFA President has wanted to leave his mark on world football, starting by bringing the World Cup to African soil for the first time in 2010. In my opinion, regardless of the bid strength, the 2018 and 2022 World Cups, were heading to new terrain. FIFA is an organization that answers to no one, and Sepp Blatter is the man pulling the strings. However, I never expected to see him throwing punches below the belt, as was the case here. It seems that the reason England may have lost the five executive committee votes was down to Blatter himself. Within one day of the vote, reports emerged of the FIFA president doing his part in taking down the English bid.
Japan's FIFA Executive committee member, stating his surprise at the failure of the English bid, said, "I thought England was a very strong candidate. Their presentation was one of the best presentations." Anson revealed on 3rd December, that he had been told that FIFA President Blatter had spoken to members of the voting committee about "the evil of the media", just minutes before the vote. Anson, obviously angered at these revelations continued by saying, "I think that was unhelpful - the last thing those guys hear before they go and tick the box is the evil of the media. That is not helpful and actually inaccurate. I was told by someone who was in the room that that's the last thing they were told by Sepp Blatter. That's not helpful to our cause."
Well no, it’s not particularly helpful at all, as it had no relevance to the strength of the bids before them and the vote they were to take
Whether or not the BBC or Sunday Times have substantial proof behind their allegations, time will tell, but it seems that the claims being made against FIFA and its voting process, might not be so far-fetched after all. Blatter will undoubtedly ignore any pleas to reform the voting process, and thus may well have dug his own grave. The English media, who were supposedly, and unfairly given as an excuse for England's failure, will now be looking to prove exactly why they made these allegations in the first place. As Nick Campbell, of BBC's Radio 5 Live suggested when interviewing Neil Custis, Chief Sports Writer for The Sun newspaper, "the gloves are well and truly off now" for the British Media, who claim the whole process is an "outrageous scandal".
Sepp Blatter should review FIFA’s own Fair Play Code, and live up to its ideals by standing up with character and courage, and for once, play fair.
