Join Now  | 
Home About Contact Us Privacy & Security Advertise
Soccer America Daily Soccer World Daily Special Edition Around The Net Soccer Business Insider College Soccer Reporter Youth Soccer Reporter Soccer on TV Soccer America Classifieds Game Report
Paul Gardner: SoccerTalk Soccer America Confidential Youth Soccer Insider World Cup Watch
RSS Feeds Archives Manage Subscriptions Subscribe
Order Current Issue Subscribe Manage My Subscription Renew My Subscription Gift Subscription
My Account Join Now
Tournament Calendar Camps & Academies Soccer Glossary Classifieds
Doubt and suspicion cloud World Cup votes
by Paul Gardner, November 19th, 2010 12:36AM
Subscribe to SoccerTalk with Paul Gardner

TAGS:  world cup, world cup 2022


By Paul Gardner

I've had my say on this topic of the allocating of World Cups before, several times. To repeat: I think it makes no sense, is in fact absolutely asking for trouble, to put the vote in the hands of a small group of people, most of whom have little or no direct knowledge of what is required to make a good bid, and thus no way of assessing a bid. Assessing a bid, that is, in the only way that it should be assessed, on its merits.

And you can immediately see that “merits” is so wide-ranging -- it includes the strictly soccer matters, plus transport, accommodation, security and plenty of other matters that go into organizing such a vast sporting and cultural event -- that the valuation of a bid is a very complex business.

The alternative, which I have also suggested several times, firstly as a sort of joke, but it increasingly looks like a pretty good idea, is to first have the bids assessed by an expert committee (not by a committee composed entirely of FIFA members, most of whom will not be experts). Once that committee has decided which bids have merit, and thrown out any that do not meet the most rigorous standards, the names of the bidding countries go into the proverbial hat, and the winner is drawn in a totally public, utterly transparent operation -- probably made by some wonderfully cherubic little boy (which is OK, just as long as he does not turn out to be the son of the President of one of the bidding nations).

That’s a scheme that takes the FIFA Executive Committee members out of the equation completely -- which at the moment looks like something that’s highly desirable, because it is precisely with those committee members that the current huge problem has arisen.

The sting operation organized by the London Sunday Times has entrapped two of the members making it clear, on tape, that their votes are for sale. Well, that surely cannot have come as a frightful shock to anyone. You don’t have to assume that all the ExCo members are villains and knaves to see that they have in their votes, something that may not mean anything at all to them, but which means a king’s ransom to the bidding nations.

Why would a member from Asia care whether the 2018 World Cup is played in England or in Spain/Portugal? What solid, evidence-based reason would he have for choosing one country over another? What difference does it make to him? None. Any preferences he may come up with are the sort of preferences -- political, probably, or personal biases or even vendettas -- that should not figure in his decision.

So if a huge amount of money is on offer for a vote ... the temptation must be up there in the overwhelming area. It is a situation that calls for a level of probity that probably cannot be guaranteed within any group of 24 people.

But now we know that the voting on December 2 will not involve 24 people -- but only 22. Amos Adamu of Nigeria and Reynald Temarii of Tahiti, the two ExCo members caught on tape by the Sunday Times discussing money in the context of their votes, and mentioning sums ranging from $800,000 to $2 million, will not vote. Both have been suspended by FIFA’s own Ethics Committee.

The Committee’s decision is a sturdy response to the evidence, and does go some way to mollifying those who -- like myself -- never feel comfortable with the idea of disciplinary bodies investigating their own colleagues. An outside, independent inquiry always seems preferable.

The announcement came Thursday at a press conference called by Claudio Sulser, head of the committee. What Sulser had to say was said in clear, measured words, with no attempt to pretend that this was not an immensely serious matter. “The damage to FIFA’s image is great,” said Sulser, “When someone joins FIFA he takes on obligations, and you don't have the right to mistakes.”

For FIFA -- and particularly for the bidding countries, including the USA -- the wider damage done by the corruption revelations is that is has created an atmosphere of suspicion that is going to be very difficult to dispel.

Suspending the two members under investigation certainly removes them from casting suspect votes. But there was another issue that the Ethics Committee investigated: accusations that Qatar and Spain/Portugal had reached an agreement to trade a number of votes, with a Qatari bloc (reportedly seven votes) supporting Spain/Portugal for 2018, in return for a Spain/Portugal bloc (also seven votes) backing Qatar in the vote for the 2022 tournament -- i.e. the one for which the USA is also competing.

With respect to those charges, the situation remains unclear. FIFA has underlined that collusion over voting is “a clear violation of the Bid Registration document and the Code of Ethics.” But nailing down any proof was beyond the ability of the Ethics committee. “There will always be rumors,” said Sulser, a statement that already seems to downgrade the matter to one of gossip.

There was at least a claim of evidence, for Chuck Blazer, a Concacaf ExCo member, claimed to have seen a note passed from a Spanish official to one from Qatar, saying, “Congratulations, We’re going to win!” Yet the Committee did not talk to any of the ExCo members -- it merely invited written submissions. In the end “we didn’t find sufficient grounds to move forward” and so no action was taken.

Leaving the suspicions largely intact of course. Should it come to pass that the winning bids on December 2 are Spain/Portugal for 2018, and Qatar for 2022, who will believe that there was no collusion? And who will have any faith left in FIFA’s already shaky method of assigning World Cups?

  1. Gus Keri
    commented on: November 19, 2010 at 9 a.m.
    Drawing lots is not going to make it, I am sure. Increasing the number of voters will reduce the chance of collusion and I see this as a better option. Instead of using 22 votes, FIFA can use the general assembly and ask all its members to vote. FIFA has more than 200 members. Good luck to any bidding country in trying to bribe more than 100 countries without being exposed. And stop this nonsense of choosing two hosts at one time.
  1. James Madison
    commented on: November 19, 2010 at 1:07 p.m.
    If FIFA wants to make money, USA is the call. Remember 1994. Qatar or anywhere else means that internal politics trumps economic rationality.

Sign in to leave a comment. Don't have an account? Join Now



Recent SoccerTalk with Paul Gardner
The Gnat's Eyebrow and other VAR stupidities     
The trial of video-assistance for referees currently under way at the Confederations Cup in Russia cannot ...
That Goal    
It was Pele who started the "soccer is beauty" theme. He titled his autobiography -- one ...
Tab Ramos paints a rosy American future in the changing U-20 World Cup -- but a U-18 World Cup would make more sense     
Tab Ramos has been talking in glowing terms of his team and its adventures at the ...
What's this? A goalkeeper penalized for rough play?     
Meet Sorin Stoica. Maybe you've seen him in action during MLS games. Not a highly paid ...
Scots wha hae! Thoughts on the sad and ominous decline of Scottish soccer    
I note, with considerable exasperation tempered by sadness, that Scottish soccer is experimenting with a marvelous ...
Celebrity coaches -- who needs them?     
I am still finding it difficult to come to terms with the extraordinary way in which ...
Wenger must stay -- even the stats agree     
Arsene Wenger should stay. That's what I think. And I think that way because I respect ...
Violent Goalkeeping (Part 2): FIFA must radically rethink the goalkeeper's role    
Last time, I asked: "What action has soccer taken to at least reduce the incidence of ...
Violent Goalkeeping (Part 1): Players at risk as soccer ignores its own rules    
Goalkeepers, we are told, need protection. No doubt we all agree. Up to a point.
The triumphant return of Bruce Arena    
Well, take that Jurgen Klinsmann. Never at any time during his five years in charge of ...
>> SoccerTalk with Paul Gardner Archives