It is very difficult to quite fathom the rationality behind FIFA's decision to award the 2018 and 2022 World Cups to Russia and Qatar respectively. Russia have a severe problem with racism and violence in football and Qatar, well they barely have a football team. The unsuccessful candidates must have felt disgusted as many had demonstrated how deserving they were. Australia, we know, has the ability to host a large scale sporting event due to their successful Olympic games in 2000. Spain and Portugal, the homes to Europe's Champions League and Europa League winners, perhaps deserve it for their recent successes. The missing candidate here is, of course, England who somehow only managed to accrue two votes in the first round of voting, after which they were eliminated. It was seen by the media and the public to have been a complete snub. People queried how this apparently representative organisation could deny football's destiny to return to its rightful home and questions were quickly raised with regards to broken promises and corruption. Prince William was accused of bribing a FIFA official with a wedding invitation and Jack Warner was said to have switched his vote to Russia at the last minute. FIFA blamed the English media, who we know have never been friendly to the organisation and Sepp Blatter. The English are yet to get over this supposed snub, for months they mumbled and grumbled rejecting Blatter and his gang of crooks.Then, the confirmation that all our suspicions were founded in reality, presidential candidate Mohamed Bin Hammam and the aforementioned Concacaf representative, Jack Warner, were suspended over allegations of corruption. This didn't come as a surprise to many of us, it was, and still is, widely believed that corruption exists deep in FIFA's dark bowls. Then the king pin, proceedings opened against President Sepp Blatter thanks to suggestions from Hammam that he accepted money from Qatar to host the World Cup. The Qatari representative must have decided that if he was going down, he was going to take the emperor of football with him. Perhaps even more surprising than the fact FIFA were acting against Blatter, was the apparent existence of an 'ethics committee'. The planned FIFA presidential election looked in doubt as both the candidates were indicted over allegations of corruption. The English FA leapt upon the opportunity and called for the election to be postponed, if not, they said they would boycott it. Once again, their pleas fell on deaf ears. Blatter stood in an uncontested election and won. Now the FA could face many years of obscurity, dispatched into a pit of insignificance and ineffectiveness.
But do the FA really want to be part of this exclusive club? It seems to many that their governance of the game is doing far more harm than good. After all, FIFA is run by a business man who imposes business ethics upon the organisation, a mantra of 'money at all costs'.FIFA's dogged determination to create revenue within football is arguably one of the reasons it has fallen in to such disrepute. The Bavaria beer flash mob incident during the 2010 World Cup is a perfect example of the lengths FIFA will go to appease the sponsors. On this occasion, 36 women were detained for wearing orange shirts during a game between the Netherlands and Denmark. Apparently FIFA consider themselves above the UN Charter of Human Rights and arrested the women for displaying the Dutch beer manufacturer's logo on their shirts. The logo, which was positioned at the bottom right hand of the seam, was a total of a mere two inches in length. Sadly for those football fans, Bavaria Beer had not paid FIFA any sponsorship revenue and so they were arrested. Further to that farcical episode, South African locals, who this World Cup was alleged to be supporting, were banned from selling food or drink outside the stadiums in order to maximise the profits of the official sponsors such as Coca-Cola.
Well, some have said, football needs money to support grassroots projects, help maintain standards within the game and nurture the next batch of talented young individuals. Any football fan would find it difficult to disagree with such claims. However, the majority of grassroots projects are run by domestic football associations and what little money FIFA do invest in the future is arguably not enough. It is an organisation worth over $1 billion and yet seems to do little promoting the sport in Africa and South America, certainly not enough to warrant such an apparent esteemed reputation. Football has proved to be an extremely positive tool for educational development in Africa, where some of the world's foremost football playing nations reside, but alas, the continent has no money and so is hardly worth FIFA's time. What little money that does go to African football, passes into the hands of corrupt officials such as Amos Adamu. Nigeria's FIFA executive committee member asked for £500,000 to build four football pitches in his home country which were never built. On this occasion FIFA did act and banned Adamu from any activity within football for three years. This is a common problem across Africa and most of the time it is not dealt with and so the officials get away with it. A number of FIFA officials have come out anonymously in the past few weeks attempting to blow the whistle on this abhorrent behaviour.
The idea that FIFA is a corrupt organisation was furthered by Jack Warner's recent leaky e-mail that claimed Qatar had bough their right to host the 2022 world cup. Well, again, this came as a shock to very few people but as it is so obvious, it seems strange that no one seems to be doing anything about it. The English and Scottish FA's decision to abstain from the election was, in my mind, a brave and commendable move. The problem according to many, including officials at Transparency International, is lack of accountability. Ways of tackling this include simple measures such as those introduced following the recent British expenses scandal. Football officials at all levels should have to publish their expenditure reports which would highlight occasions when a development officer is claiming £500,000 for new pitches and spending only a quarter of it, as has been reported in Africa. If such a move were made, perhaps FIFA's ethics committee would be able to act not only with the use of hard evidence but the support of football associations. Ultimately though, FIFA is not a democratic organisation and as a result the fans, who keep the game alive, have no say in how football is governed. If they did, Qatar would most certainly not be hosting a World Cup in 40 degree heat, with no beer and few native fans.Is it time that the FA considered alternative options for the governance of football? The Spanish are also alleged to be frustrated with the organisation and a combined effort on behalf of the Spanish and English FAs would surely contain some clout due to the value La Liga and the Premier League has to FIFA. A complete self imposed exile from football's governing body may not sound like a probable solution but it might be desirable. After all, it is run by a questionable businessman, not someone tied to the game by a glittering career and as a result, who has helped corruption flourish within its corridors. It most probably would not be a permanent solution but, just as Kerry Packer's World Series Cricket did in the 1970s when he decided to break cricket away from the ICC, it may send some serious messages to those at the top about the current state of the sport.
Withdrawal from may not be likely to happen within the next few years, but something does need to change at the much maligned organisation to save football from a deep and catastrophic crisis. To see some democracy introduced would surely be a positive step and would provide an opportunity for the fans' vital voices to be heard. The first step however, is to remove the dark lord himself and ensure that Sepp Blatter never has any influence over our beloved game ever again, that would begin a move towards creating a better FIFA and a better game.