Panorama and Andrew Jennings added another act to the joke that is FIFA yesterday. It is not the first time it has been smeared for corruption allegations.
We are indeed amidst the closing stages to see who will host the FIFA World Cup in 2018 and 2022, and if votes go our way it could possibly be in England. Anyone who ever reads Jennings’s excellent website Transparency in Sport will be aware of the activities behind the scenes at FIFA. The real question should be, would we really want to host it and really, who gains most?
The world of politics and diplomacy is always a bit shady (as we know from wikileaks) but why does no one ask any questions of FIFA? Sepp Blatter must be the only President of an organisation who does not declare his wage, yet politicians invite him to the corridors of power in an attempt to persuade him to consider their bid. A man who started as a lawyer working for Adidas, now holds the highest seat in international football, but opposes transparency or reform. The ‘beautiful’ game has become ‘tarnished’.
Blatter’s legacy is supposedly to help the expansion of the game throughout the world and use football as a tool to unite people. The South African World Cup was the first occasion to bring the ‘beautiful game’ to the African continent. No one questions the merits of the event, but why aren’t people a bit more sceptical of all things ‘unifying’ and ‘legacy’. No one questioned whether Africa could host a competition (IPL, the Rugby World Cup, the African Cup of Nations) but in meeting FIFA’s strict criteria, was it necessary to build new stadia and the infrastructure? The answers suggest no; since the tournament, several of the stadiums lay empty and recent matches have only filled tiny proportions of the ground. The improved transport links will lay foundations for future economic benefits, but it doesn’t fill the hotels built to cater for prospective tourists.
Since the Athens Olympics in 2004, the Olympic stadium and other supporting arenas have become wastelands. Since Euro 2004 in Portugal one of the stadiums was knocked down because of high maintenance costs. Both Spain and Portugal are the favourites for the upcoming bid, yet Spain too has dozens of stadium that are half built or under-prepared. These will be sorted out if the bid is won, but why should stadiums of such magnitude be built, under executive orders and government submission, only to be left redundant a month later? It is all put in perspective if both Iberian countries are apparently on the verge of collapse, this isn’t FIFA’s problem.
I understand the power of sport and the impact it can have on society. I do not buy this idea that through spending billions will you achieve this acclaimed legacy. It certainly makes a country feel better but it is not the only solution. If England wins the bid then it will continue to be no questions asked and will purely highlight this country’s great sporting tradition and capacity to hosting global events. FIFA and its bandwagon will be a part of this and no further questions will be asked.
We are indeed amidst the closing stages to see who will host the FIFA World Cup in 2018 and 2022, and if votes go our way it could possibly be in England. Anyone who ever reads Jennings’s excellent website Transparency in Sport will be aware of the activities behind the scenes at FIFA. The real question should be, would we really want to host it and really, who gains most?
The world of politics and diplomacy is always a bit shady (as we know from wikileaks) but why does no one ask any questions of FIFA? Sepp Blatter must be the only President of an organisation who does not declare his wage, yet politicians invite him to the corridors of power in an attempt to persuade him to consider their bid. A man who started as a lawyer working for Adidas, now holds the highest seat in international football, but opposes transparency or reform. The ‘beautiful’ game has become ‘tarnished’.
Blatter’s legacy is supposedly to help the expansion of the game throughout the world and use football as a tool to unite people. The South African World Cup was the first occasion to bring the ‘beautiful game’ to the African continent. No one questions the merits of the event, but why aren’t people a bit more sceptical of all things ‘unifying’ and ‘legacy’. No one questioned whether Africa could host a competition (IPL, the Rugby World Cup, the African Cup of Nations) but in meeting FIFA’s strict criteria, was it necessary to build new stadia and the infrastructure? The answers suggest no; since the tournament, several of the stadiums lay empty and recent matches have only filled tiny proportions of the ground. The improved transport links will lay foundations for future economic benefits, but it doesn’t fill the hotels built to cater for prospective tourists.
Since the Athens Olympics in 2004, the Olympic stadium and other supporting arenas have become wastelands. Since Euro 2004 in Portugal one of the stadiums was knocked down because of high maintenance costs. Both Spain and Portugal are the favourites for the upcoming bid, yet Spain too has dozens of stadium that are half built or under-prepared. These will be sorted out if the bid is won, but why should stadiums of such magnitude be built, under executive orders and government submission, only to be left redundant a month later? It is all put in perspective if both Iberian countries are apparently on the verge of collapse, this isn’t FIFA’s problem.
I understand the power of sport and the impact it can have on society. I do not buy this idea that through spending billions will you achieve this acclaimed legacy. It certainly makes a country feel better but it is not the only solution. If England wins the bid then it will continue to be no questions asked and will purely highlight this country’s great sporting tradition and capacity to hosting global events. FIFA and its bandwagon will be a part of this and no further questions will be asked.
No comments:
Post a Comment