So, this was the week that FIFA upset the entire country & gave the 2018 World Cup to Russia. Without needing to go into too much detail, it is clear that England had the best bid in every respect, and that we also made the best presentation. FIFA Executive Committee (Ex-Co) members & even Sepp Blatter himself were also making all the right noises - how the ‘Motherland’ had ‘earned the right’ and ‘deserved’ to host the World Cup after such a long absence, and that we could ‘host the tournament tomorrow’ if needed.
The infamous British media then cranked up it’s nosey-parker machine and both the Sunday Times and tax-payer funded BBC (with impeccable timing) thought it would aid our bid immensely by accusing FIFA Ex-Co members of corruption, & by doing so only achieving two things: Firstly, informing the world what we already knew - that FIFA is the most corrupt organisation on the planet, and secondly, pissing off those FIFA Ex-Co members sufficiently to give the World Cup to a country who’s bid was one of only 2 (along with Qatar‘s 2022 bid) which was described by FIFA themselves as ‘high risk’.
Yes, it would have been helpful if FIFA had forewarned the FA that the criteria they had laid out (stadia, transport links, hotels, training facilities, security, etc.) would actually count for absolutely nothing in their decision making process, and that they would simply give it to somewhere that hadn’t hosted it before in order to “aid the development of football and leave a lasting legacy” in the winning country (this is despite the fact that Italy, France, Germany, Mexico, & after 2014 Brazil, will have all have hosted it twice…..).
England 2018’s bid chief - Andy Anson - has spoken passionately and eloquently about the failings in FIFA’s structure, and how they need to reform in order to regain the confidence of the footballing world (an excellent piece on the subject is here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/9257780.stm). In essence, the FA are hoping for FIFA to become more transparent and opening up their processes for all to see (alternatively, this could also be achieved by way of a full, open and thorough investigation into FIFA by the Swiss anti-corruption authorities). Yet for all their posturing & protesting, is our own FA really any different to those they point the finger at?
Lets face it, the FA are a farce, and have been for a considerable number of years. The corridors of power at Lancaster Gate, Soho Square and now Wembley, have been filled with the games’ administrators: faceless & nameless men in grey suites who (much like their FIFA counterparts) have never played the game at a sufficient level to fully understand it, who tend to put themselves about at high profile games and events travelling in first class 5-star luxury - all paid for by expenses - whilst making decisions on the game anonymously and in secret. If the FA are to start throwing accusations at - and making demands of - FIFA, then they need to get their own house in order first.
For example, lets look at the Chairmanship of the FA. Can anyone tell me who the current FA Chairman is? No, I thought not. In actual fact, there IS no Chairman at the FA. Roger Burden was appointed acting Chairman in May this year following the departure of Lord Triesman, who resigned after what he called his "entrapment" by a national newspaper. Burden initially was not interested in taking the role full-time, but later changed his mind and wish to be considered for the job. He has now changed it again and has withdrawn his candidacy to take over the job permanently following England’s disastrous 2018 World Cup bid by stating “I'm not prepared to deal with people (FIFA Ex-Co members) whom I cannot trust”. However he will remain in the position until a successor can be found, with the FA due to name the permanent chairman early next year. How can the FA challenge the leaders of FIFA when they have no leader themselves?
Then there are the mystery-members of the FA who sit on all manner of panels enforcing rules & regulations, making decisions on how the game is run and handing out punishments which fail massively to deal with the fans’ number 1 complaint - consistency. These people are as anonymous and answerable to no-one as the FIFA Ex-Co members who they accuse of being open to distrust and corruption (thus allowing both parties to pretty much do whatever they please without fear of recrimination). How can the FA call for FIFA to become completely transparent, when they are not now - nor are they willing to become so - themselves?
Sponsorship is another moot-point in the current game, and some (the FA being one) have accused FIFA of not giving alternative companies a look-in when it comes to certain deals. Current long-term sponsors of the ‘global game’ include adidas, Coca-Cola and McDonalds, and it has been suggested that these sponsorship deals are all secured behind closed doors, and are not open to tender, therefore breaking EU competition laws. I’m sure the likes of Nike, Pepsi and Burger King would all like a chance to enjoy the riches that the sponsorship of a World Cup brings, yet they are unable to do so due to the long-term watertight deals already in place. The FA publicly believe that by opening up the bidding process, it would again remove the accusations of corruption & would also raise the price of such deals.
However the very same accusations could be true of the FA themselves. Umbro, for example, have been providing the England team playing & training kits at all levels since 1954 (apart from a decade between 1974 and 1984 in which Admiral supplied the kits). That’s a whopping 46 years in total! Most recently, the tender for the England kit contract was up for review in 2008 - however without even inviting bids from other manufacturers, the FA announced that they had secured and signed a deal with Umbro until 2018. Understandably, the likes of adidas, Puma and Reebok we are all livid (although Nike weren‘t so angry as they bought Umbro in 2008 - the very same year in which the contract with the FA was renewed without bidding…..). How can the FA complain of FIFA’s unfair contract awards when they themselves do exactly the same thing?
Following on this theme, the FA’s greed and uncouth business manner, led to them demanding an increase from £10m per year to £40m per year from principal sponsor Nationwide. The building society (who in return offered to double their offer to £20m per year) decided this did not represent good value for money and thereby ended their 11 year partnership. This has led to other principal England team sponsors (such as McDonalds, Carlsberg, Lucozade and Tesco, to name just 4 of the many) to reconsider and renegotiate their contracts with the FA, at a time where many companies are reigning in spending. In a spectacular own-goal, the FA’s pure greed could leave them on the back-foot and possibly forcing them into a position whereby they have no option but to accept vastly reduced offers. How can the FA lay claim to being experts in sponsorship & promotional matters, when they have continually left themselves open to accusations of unfair, underhand and biased business dealings and contract negotiations?
In conclusion, the FA have left themselves wide-open to exactly the same criticisms and accusations as they themselves are throwing at FIFA. It would be enormously hypocritical of them to continue their child-like, dummy-spitting tirade at football’s world governing body (regardless of how much of a point they may have), without getting their own house in order first. It’s high time the Football Association lead by example, and dropped their “do as we say, not as we do” attitude.
No comments:
Post a Comment