FIFA Selects Dollars Over Sense
Twenty-two men convened in Zurich to seal the fate of the world’s most popular sport for the next dozen years. The preceding weeks and months saw FIFA forced to investigate alleged corruption, the spectre of blatant vote-buying and potential collusion between bids in the two adjoining cycles. It was a risk they knew they would take by selecting hosts for the next two available tournaments.
But FIFA president Sepp Blatter has resolutely been a mouthpiece set to “obfuscate”, obstinately refusing to make the tough but sensible and just decisions a chief executive is hired to make. The vote would go on, amidst worldwide clamor to break up the bidding process. After all, so much money had already been expended by the 2022 candidates that to reverse fortune now would be to slap members in good standing right in the face.
So the two dozen selectors, minus the two convicted corrupt amongst their number, came together at FIFA headquarters to set the schedule for soccer’s biggest showcase into the next decade. They did everything they could to make things look transparent. After all, it was not Spain but Russia that nabbed the 2018 spot that was to be the last awarded to one amongst bidders from a single continent in the old rotational format.
Transparent? What FIFA was trying to do here was as transparent as cellophane. By rejecting the bid of the current world champions, they essentially set up their next move so that they could get on with the real controversy. It took just two rounds for the FIFA panel to declare Russia the host of the 2018 World Cup, England dropped in the first round of voting before Russia secured an absolute majority over the joint bids of Spain/Portugal and Netherlands/Belgium 13-7-2 in the second.
The real travesty wasn’t in Russia winning or the Iberians losing, or even in the snub of the Low Countries. But it directly set the stack for FIFA to vote on 2022 in the manner they seemed to want to all along.
Japan and South Korea, joint hosts back in 2002, were doomed by their separate bids this time around. This was supposed to be a three-way battle between an unusual government-fueled bid by Qatar and the privately-backed might of the American and Australian proposals.
But then the inexplicable happened. Australia was shunted aside in the first round of 2022 voting with a single ballot in their name. Qatar nearly won before the festivities could begin, falling one vote short of absolute majority on the opening round of balloting. It was a stunning turn of events, and now a heads-up winner-take-all stake game was there for the U.S. and Qatari contingents to exploit.
Japan was tossed aside on the second ballot with just two votes, and we nearly saw an even bigger surprise than Australia’s early ouster when the third round saw the Americans barely escape elimination. By this point the votes were aligned 11 for Qatar, 6 for the U.S. and 5 for South Korea.
The head-to-head showdown was set, the 1994 hosts versus the neophyte petro-emirate. Maybe the Americans thought Morgan Freeman could be their Nelson Mandela (he played him in a movie, so he ought to be just as effective as the real man in swaying votes… right?), but neither he nor Bill Clinton were changing FIFA’s mind on this one.
Forget that the governing body had already expressed grave concerns about excessive heat in the Arab country during the season when World Cups are scheduled. With promises of lavish air-conditioned stadiums and the emir’s riches to focus voters’ attention, Qatar landed its majority on the fourth go-around, 14-8 over a more secure framework presented by the Yanks.
The Americans will survive their setback. MLS is still growing, soccer is still on an upswing in this country, and the demographic shift only bolsters the sport’s viewer base on American soil. It remains to be seen whether Qatar can live up to its vast promises that swayed FIFA voters to think with their calculators rather than with a far-sighted view for growing the sport as effectively as possible.
As for FIFA, this is just another blow toward its credibility. Instead of choosing the soundest proposal for its tournament, it chose the one whose money spoke loudest. For an organization already scrutinized this year for its reluctance toward dealing with blatantly poor officiating, its reticence toward even considering goal-line replay, and the bungling way it handled the lead-up investigations to these votes, the choice of Qatar and, in a lesser way, Russia show once again that Sepp Blatter and his cronies are more inclined to think in terms of dollars than sense.
TAGS: 2018, 2022, Australia, bid, Qatar, Russia, Sepp Blatter, spain, United States, USA, vote, world cup




5 Comments
From Landon Donovan’s twitter page:
“I have an idea..we play Qatar in a friendly(they can even host it), and the winner gets to host the 2022 WC..wait, do they even have a team?”
FIFA’s self-commissioned study showed that the revenue generated by a U.S.-based World Cup would be far more lucrative than a tournament held in any other nation. If FIFA wanted money, it should have come here.
The voters’ pockets may be lined for the time being, but when back-to-back Cups end as resounding flops, they’ll be crying for the funds they might have seen from a better location.
This is ridiculous.
If they would give to US, I would say the selected dollars over sense.
US just hosted a World Cup in 1994. Why would they select them again so fast? Brazil, the next host waited for 64 years to have it again. And this is their primary sport while in US it's not even the top 5 sports in the Country!
Stop crying like a spoiled child!
This is not a setback for US, and I am positive they will host again in the future. But let other Countries have their fun too!
Thanks everyone for the passionate responses on both sides of the issue.
Truth be told I wasn’t trying to go for a pro-American stance (or any other pro- stance) here.
The turn of phrase “dollars over sense” stems not from what money could be made IN Qatar…
… but the millions of dollars spent on a fanciful PR campaign short on substance and long on promises.
I am as much for the little guy getting a chance to host as the next.
And soccer-mad nations such as Brazil should NOT have to wait six decades for the tournament.
I’m not even necessarily saying the U.S. should’ve received the nod.
But why did strong Australian and English bids get short shrift, cast aside with but a vote or two to their name?
Russia doesn’t make me sad, and Qatar — if indeed they can pull off the necessary — could be groundbreaking.
But the manner in which the votes went down, looking at the numbers themselves…
… well, it says to me that these votes were pretty much sold to:
• Prevent an appearance of collusion (hence Spain/Portugal’s lack of a chance)
• The need to put it in Qatar despite overwhelming evidence of its inclement climate
The other big problem is that, in a country this small — with such marginal stadium or transportation infrastructure and a whole lot of building to do, will the good-time riches of the emirate last?
That, as I said, was always the threat of holding a dual vote.
Something will always look suspect.
But congrats to Russia and Qatar… may they take the criticisms of writers like myself and snub us all.
I’d much prefer a great World Cup to being right in hindsight…