Its very difficult to predict who the FIFA Select Committee will eventually settle on, but I am a fan of the underdogs. If it was up to me, I would pick Russia for 2018 and Qatar for 2022. Why? Simply because they have never hosted before. Furthermore, although it is reported England scored higher marks when FIFA assessed the bids, I feel there is more government commitment from Russia, and besides, FIFA has always trumpeted this tune of taking the game to new territories, and Russia, like the USA, is very virgin territory in as far s the game is concerned.
We could say the same about the Qatar, but being from the third world myself, I am more attracted by the technology they are talking about, and how it can benefit me and my kith and kin down this side. Think of World Cup stadiums being folded after use and shipped to the third world? Thats what you do when you got oil money. Of course the Japanese are also talking about giant screens in more than 400 stadiums across the world that would literally bring the World Cup into my beloved National Sports Stadium but then again, its less than ten years ago when we were watching from Japan, so I would ask them to pass.
But now here is the sad part, no matter what I think and my claim that I could probably rank as one of the top 100 most football passionate people in the world, this will not matter when Sepp Blatter eventually announces the decision tomorrow around 5PM Zim time. I am probably more passionate about the game than half of the 22 men that are going to make this multi-billion dollar decision, bringing into question the FIFA ways of handling football matters. There is just too much politics involved to expect the decision to be about the good of the game.
The first question is why should the World Cup decision be made by a handful of old men, some of whom if media reports and their past decisions are anything to go by, are so prone to corruption they could sell their birthright? Surely, the electorate should be much larger and more diverse. Pedro Pinto of CNN says, about our beloved voters, "They have built such intertwined personal relationships that in many ways they are as familiar as a family. But does this mean they have lost the ability to to be objective when it comes to dealing with the many people they know well-connected to the countries that are bidding to host the tournament?"
I say yes, they are contaminated!
Right now you have got, from England, David Beckham, Prime Minister David Cameroon and Royalty in the form of Prince William in Zurich mixing and mingling with these voters of ours. Bill Clinton is part of the American bid team, and all sorts of mega millionaire television and football starts are abound, campaigning for their favorite countries. Its all good and I may not know with certainty what goes on there, but surely thats a recipe for disaster. What are the chances that the voters are being subjected to some "charismatic" pressure and getting all sorts of promises if they ensured the vote goes a certain way?
What about the allegations of corruption that have marred the run up to the decision. The England bidding team has accused national broadcaster the BBC for being unpatriotic simply because they decided to let out certain allegations of corruption about some of the voters days before the voting. Why are they panicking? Because that story affects a few of the voters, and is capable of contaminating all of them, hence they fear a backlash through the ballot. On the other hand, it could a clever British ploy to way lay the world, especially if you listen to the recent statements about the voters, coming from the likes of Beckham.
But would these same concerns be there if all FIFA members had a representative voting, and accusations were leveled against 3 out of a multitude of voters? Not many would care, hey? It would have been a different scenario. Right now, the group of voters will likely act collectively. They have a very strong network, which they would want to protect, and will "punish" those who want to ruffle their feathers. On the flip side, they may want to be seen to be "clean", and vote against those countries that have been smeared for offering bribes or colluding, even though they could have voted for them on merit. It has just been so jumbled up, I have lost confidence.
Pinto goes on to suggest changes to the voting system, which I agree will make FIFA a bit more democratic:
The hosts should be decided in the following manner:
- Every one of FIFA's 208 member associations should have a representative to take part in the voting.
- The reps should vote in only one World Cup host ballot (and please do away with deciding the venue for 2 World Cups at one go. 4 years is a long time, and so much can change).
- All members must vote at the same place, same time.
This will help open up the process, and give the decision power to more people than just the Charlie Dempseys (remember the guy who didn't vote for SA) of this world. This spreads the voting powers among many and makes it more difficult for the potential hosts to bribe, seek collusion or put pressure of the voters.
You and I are the staunchest followers of this game, and it will be daydreaming to think that we could participate in such decisions (but with technology, lets start pursuing opportunities for worldwide electronic vote, after all we are already voting for the African Footballer of the Year through BBC aren't we?), but we need assurance that the hosts of the World Cup are chosen on merit, and not because someone got paid. The hosting decision is a major decision. The World Cup is a big issue. Billions of tax payer's money are going into preparing the bids and building stadiums to get countries prepared, and it will be treasonous to have the host being decided on any other reason other than FOR THE GOOD OF THE GAME.
No comments:
Post a Comment