Skip to content

Fifa: Fair or foul?

Image: All eyes on Fifa as the race draws to its conclusion

Kait Borsay reflects on the much disputed bidding process to host the World Cup in 2018.

Kait Borsay looks at the much disputed bidding process for what will be a multi-billion pound competition in 2018

Arguably the fight to host the 2018 World Cup is the most contested bid in Fifa's history. The controversy surrounding those countries bidding and the behaviour of those high up at Fifa has meant that the stakes are high. Very high. All eyes will be on the finish line on December 2 - and a result borne out of years of planning and lobbying by the bid nations as they look to convince a select Fifa executive committee that they best deserve the big prize on offer. With further fuel added to the fire after allegations in the BBC's Panorama programme, Kait Borsay looks at the much disputed bidding process for what will be a multi-billion pound competition in 2018 Here's the thing: when Fifa announce the result of their exhaustive ballot system on December 2 it will herald not only the end of what will have been one of the most well documented, controversial bidding wars in recent times but also the start of changes that will have to be made as a result of events this time around. And I'm not even sure the bid nations that lose out will go quietly. If the build-up is anything to go by, the aftermath could be just as enthralling.

The background

This time, the bidding for the World Cup in 2018 and 2022 has run alongside each other. Originally a total of eleven bids were submitted to meet the March 2009 deadline. Mexico withdrew, Indonesia had their bid rejected for lack of government support and of the nine remaining bids, five were only for 2022. The remaining four covered both tournaments but as all four are from Europe, and a confederation cannot host either of the two preceding tournaments - all bids were forced to be for 2018 only. So we know Europe will host the 2018 World Cup, it's just down to who gets it - the joint bids of Belgium and the Netherlands; and Portugal and Spain; or the individual efforts of either England or Russia?

The candidates

England - Although not the favourite to win, England's bid is a strong contender. Technically it's the most accomplished, as highlighted by the technical reports published last week. England already has the transport infrastructure, the fanbase and guaranteed commercial return for Fifa. Although it might be the easy option, England as the host nation does not necessarily tickle Fifa's ego. The idea of making history and covering un-chartered territories is not really the order of the day in what is already the 'home of football'. Russia - Here Fifa have the chance to help create a real legacy, with the chance for Russia to capitalise on revenue and bed down the grassroots of a future footballing nation. Try as they might though, the Russian's cannot escape associations with racism and hooliganism. Technical reports labelled Russia's transport system as 'high risk' - with ageing networks and huge distances to cover; although millions of pounds are earmarked for upgrading. Along with investment for new stadia; the prospect of helping to build the next-generation Russia should make for an enticing prospect. Portugal and Spain - Seem pretty confident, it has to be said. Ready made stadia, and already a good footballing fanbase. Spain though last hosted the World Cup in 1982, and Portugal the European Championships in 2004. Are known to have networked very well. Problems with financing new and upgraded stadia have been mooted. Belgium and the Netherlands - The only one of the four bids so far not to have been hit by controversy. The cynical amongst us might say that's because they were never hugely in the running. A fair option, but not a likely winner.

The controversy

Where do we start? Let's go back to earlier this year where we encountered a bit of an in-house shuffling because of comments made by the then Football Association and bid chairman Lord Triesman. Just two days after the Labour peer and David Beckham formally presented England's 1,752-page 'bid book' to Fifa president Sepp Blatter on 14th May 2010, Lord Triesman resigned. He had suggested to a former aide that Spain may withdraw its bid to to stage the 2018 finals if Russia helped bribe referees in the 2010 World Cup. The claims were completely unsubstantiated and he was replaced by Geoff Thompson. The Sunday Times threw the biggest stone at Fifa just over a month ago with a well publicised expose on the organisation. Executive members Amos Adamu and Reynald Temarii were at the centre of bribery allegations. Adamu, the former Nigerian sports minister, was secretly filmed telling reporters posing as lobbyists for the US World Cup bid that he would accept £500,000 - with half up front - to build four artificial pitches in Nigeria. Reporters were told to channel the money through the personal bank account of a family member.Temarii, a Fifa vice-president who represents the Oceania confederation, discussed a £1.5 million payment for a sports academy at the OFC's headquarters in Auckland in exchange for his vote. He also claimed that his confederation had been offered $10-12 million by two competing bids. Two other senior Fifa officials, Amadou Diakite from Mali, who sits on Fifa's referee's committee, and Slim Aloulou of Tunisia, chairman of Fifa's disputes resolution committee, were also alleged to have told reporters that Fifa executive members could be persuaded to accept bribes of up to £1million for "personal projects". After a meeting of Fifa's ethics committee last week Adamu has become the first official from the organisation ever to be banned for bribery after he was found guilty of breaching bribery rules and banned for three years. Temarii was suspended for a year. Former executive members Diakite and Aloulou were suspended for three and two years respectively and a further two former executive members were suspended as well. Adamu has said he will appeal, but this will not be heard before the December 2 vote. His statement read: "I am profoundly disappointed with the ethics committee's findings and honestly believed I would be exonerated of any charges by now. "I completely refute the decision they have made. I will be lodging a full appeal against it with immediate effect." In a separate investigation, the ethics committee found insufficient evidence of claims made by former Fifa general secretary Michel Zen Ruffinen that the Spain-Portugal bid team for 2018 had formed a strong voting alliance with Qatar for 2022 (in effect, colluding to trade votes) - a move which is against Fifa'a bidding rules. Gilberto Modail, head of the Portuguese FA categorically denied the claims and Zen Ruffinen said his claims were an exaggeration to impress reporters, again posing as American lobbyists. The Fifa bans seem to indicate that they have reprimanded the guilty party, but after the suspensions, Sepp Blatter questioned the methods used by the Sunday Times. "One can ask oneself whether such an action, trying to set traps for people, is appropriate," he said. The chairman of Fifa's ethics committee Claudio Sulser was also quick to turn the knife, calling the newspaper "sensationalist" and accusing them of "twisting the facts". So how were the Fifa committee members guilty if seemingly the very evidence that put them there was a distortion of the truth? 'Don't shoot the messenger' springs to mind, but in my opinion that's exactly what has happened. It's a perfect paradox: act upon the results of an investigation by a newspaper, yet criticise them for doing the investigation in the first place, and question its findings. Fifa has admitted to suffering "very great damage" from the scandal and they are sure to have increased further their reticence and objection towards the English media. And this seems unfair. England probably didn't do themselves any favours by making an official complaint to Fifa about comments made by the Russian bid's chief executive Alexei Sorokin that London was 'crime and alcohol riddled'. The complaint was made four days after Sorokin's comments and during the Fifa's period of investigation into bribery allegations - when they certainly had less petty things to deal with. Lowering to such goading was surely not a good move by the England bid, and the issue was resolved with embarrassing ease when Russian bid leader and Minister of Sport Vitaly Mutko apologised to Geoff Thompson and bid chief executive Andy Anson. And then there's Panorama investigation, broadcast on Monday night. The programme alleges that Fifa vice president Issa Hayatou along with fellow executive committee members Ricardo Teixeira, head of the Brazilian Football Confederation which is responsible for staging the 2014 World Cup, and South American head Nicolas Léoz took bribes from sports marketing company International Sports and Leisure (ISL) from 1989 to 1999 in return for helping it with lucrative contacts. Fifa granted ISL exclusive rights to market World Cup tournaments; therefore involving some of the world's biggest brands. ISL also received millions more from negotiating television rights. The company collapsed in 2001 Ahead of the programme, Fifa vice-president Jack Warner - himself the subject of allegations that continue to link him to the resale of World Cup tickets to touts said:"In my personal opinion, it is deliberately designed to negatively impact on England's chances." Some details of the alleged bribes first emerged in 2008, when six ISL managers were accused of misusing company money, at the time bribery in Switzerland was not a criminal offence. The Criminal Court in Zug, Switzerland kept the case out of the public domain and did not convict any of the Fifa officials involved. Fifa feel that the allegations surrounding three of their members and ISL are old ground. And were dealt with back in 2008. "It is important to stress again the fact that no Fifa officials were accused of any criminal offence in these proceedings," a statement from Fifa president Sepp Blatter has said. So closed doors from Fifa, for now. The International Olympic Committee will investigate Hayatou though. He has been an IOC member since 2001 and sits on the Women and Sport commission. He was also a member of the coordination commission that monitored preparations for the 2008 Beijing Olympics. An IOC statement read: "The IOC has taken notice of the allegations made by BBC Panorama and will ask the programme makers to pass on any evidence they may have to the appropriate authorities. "The IOC has zero tolerance against corruption and will refer the matter to the IOC Ethics Commission" Hayatou insists the money was given to the Confederation of African Football towards their 40th anniversary celebrations. He is now considering legal action against Panorama. If only Fifa, forced surely by questions surrounding the way they are run, and the operations of those people that represent it were quite so ready to open the door. England's bid team have written to all twenty-two members of Fifa's executive committee in an effort to distance themselves from the programme and the allegations made in the Sunday Times. Andy Anson has called the BBC "unpatriotic" for going ahead with the broadcast, and has called the programme "an embarrassment to the BBC". Yet the corporation maintain the programme "is in the public interest". A statement from the FA reads: "We stand by our previous position that the BBC's Panorama did nothing more than rake over a series of historical allegations none of which are relevant to the current bidding process". Could it harm England's bid? Well you'd hope not. It's no coincidence though that English bookies have seen any interest in their punters backing England to win the bid, dramatically tail off. Fifa have had their say on what they think of the country's press, and the England bid team have declared their reserve.

The voting

Although some will say that members of Fifa's executive committee will have made their minds up weeks ago, England are leaving nothing to chance and have used the time before the host nation is voted in to extensively lobby as many of the Fifa men that matter as possible. They seem convinced that a handful of key votes remain up for grabs and have called in the likes of David Cameron, Prince William and David Beckham to turn on the charm offensive. In contrast, Spain-Portugal have kept a relatively low profile, the chief executive of their bid, Miguel Angel Lopez insisting that last minute lobbying will not make a difference. "All the fish is sold" he said. Originally votes will have been cast by all twenty-four members of Fifa's Executive Committee; with two suspensions that number has been reduced to twenty-two. There are no plans to replace the missing two members for this vote. Voting is conducted using a multiple round exhaustive ballot system whereby the candidate receiving the fewest votes in each round is eliminated until a single candidate is chosen by the majority. To get past the first round of voting, England will need to secure at least seven of the twenty-two votes on offer.

Going forward

Fifa is ripe for a shake up but the chances of wholesale changes are slim - they're too big an organisation - too powerful. Sepp Blatter has conceded though that it was a mistake to run both 2018 and 2022 bidding together, surmising that such an arrangement was ripe for collusion and "not the right way to go." Fifa should be looking to take example from the International Olympic Committee, who after falling foul of corruption in the Salt Lake City scandal (where allegations of bribery to secure the 2002 Winter Olympics ran to all-expense-paid ski trips, deals on real estate and even plastic surgery) had to embrace reform. Informal visits to bid cities were banned, there was more transparency in the technical inspection process, new term and age limits were put in place for IOC membership and there are now clear rules and guidelines on conflicts of interest. Is this what we should be focusing on after December 2? I really hope so.

Around Sky