Separation of sports and politics

Sepp Blatter doesn't want politics to taint the beautiful game. But why does FIFA turn the bidding for the World Cup into a game of politics?

You have been called many unpleasant things in recent days. You've been accused of being corrupt, incompetent, a litany of things not fit for print, and everything in between.

Now it's my turn: You're hypocritical.

Believe it or not, none of my feelings have anything to do with awarding the World Cup to Russia and Qatar, no matter how superior other candidates were. What set me off was a remark by your secretary general, Jerome Valcke. Just days after you awarded the next two World Cups, he told the Agence France-Presse news agency that it had been "a political decision to open up onto the world." And that, in fact, bringing the tournament to South Africa was a decision based on political considerations, too.

Valcke's boss, FIFA president Sepp Blatter, reiterated that point to Swiss magazine Weltwoche a few days later. "Football has become a political matter," he said. "Heads of state court me. Football has become a monster, but it's a positive monster."

How, exactly, is that, Sepp?

How can you say your organization is making "political" decisions when you have long come down hard on any political tainting of the sport? You don't have to answer right now, I know you've got other pressing matters.

Remember when FIFA refused to move the 1978 World Cup away from Argentina, where a murderous regime had just taken over in a military coup, because you didn't engage in politics? Remember when, following France's embarrassing World Cup player strike and ouster this summer, you warned the country that "political interference" would not be tolerated? You even went so far as to say that French president Nicolas Sarkozy's pledge to investigate what had gone wrong in South Africa could lead to a suspension of the national team from international competition.

Any of this ring a bell?

You pounded your chest, Sepp, and told the press that "political interference will be dealt with by FIFA notwithstanding what kind of interference and what is the size of the country."

On Oct. 4, you suspended Nigeria indefinitely "on account of government interference." You shut down a national program and banned club teams from competing outside of Nigeria's borders because the courts were meddling in the affairs of the soccer federation. Although the ban has been provisionally lifted, you appear to be days away from subjecting Ghana to the same suspension, and for the same reason.

You just couldn't stomach the confluence of soccer and politics. I get it.

So where did you come up with the brilliant idea that it is advisable to turn the World Cup bidding process into an overtly political process? And to publicly acknowledge such, to boot? When did you decide it was a good thing to cast aside the most technically strong proposals, such as the ones put forth by England and the U.S., for your signature event?

The hypocrisy that has permeated your organization manifests itself in the voting process for World Cups, too. Even if you put aside the outcome of the latest round of voting, you can't help but be shocked when you, FIFA, demand transparency from your member federations -- that they be run cleanly and independently from political influence -- while your own way of doing business is so opaque. Twenty-four men get together in a room and, well, who knows what goes on? Then you announce a winner. All that's missing is for white smoke to billow from the chimney after you make the decision.

Valcke, in another gem, called the bidding process "perfectly organized, perfectly transparent and perfectly under control." But how could it possibly be that when, until this latest round of selections, you wouldn't even disclose the number of votes gained by each bid?

And since we still don't know who voted for whom, we also are in the dark about which alliances existed and who switched votes in what round. Ah, said Valcke, but you don't find out who voted for whom in a political election, either.

Yes, but single votes have a much smaller impact in political elections when there are millions of others voting. But when just two dozen people get to dole out billions of dollars in revenue without oversight or accountability, you invite corruption.

It makes you look like a bunch of amateurs, an old boys' club clinging to your power.

The solution is quite simple: Stop punishing countries for political interference when it is unavoidable and, quite clearly, is something that you, by your own admission, are far from immune to. It's pretty clear by now that a separation of sport and politics is a pipe dream. And stop giving 24 men more authority than they should have. Cast your bigger net, and require the top 20 officials of each of your 208 member federations around the world to vote in the World Cup bidding process. Tell them their votes will be made public. And then follow up.

It's the only way you can start to regain the credibility you've lost.

Sincerely,

Leander Schaerlaeckens

Dismayed soccer fan



