Russia and Qatar were just named the Fifa World Cup hosts for 2018 and 2022 respectively, to their own jubilation and to England's chagrin. While the preceding bid-teams celebrated their selection, the English press asserted claims of corruption, cheating and favouritism.
According to The Guardian the,
2018 [UK Fifa bid] chief executive, Andy Anson, also said there was no point England bidding for another World Cup until the process was fundamentally overhauled as the detail of the humiliation was laid bare. "I would say right now, don't bother until you know that the process is going to change to allow bids like ours to win," said Anson.
Anson's statement is revealing. The obvious implication being that the system only works if England wins, not a gracious sentiment coming from the host of the upcoming 2012 Olympics. Apart from demonstrating an inability to lose with dignity, some elements of English media, and perhaps English public opinion, also exposed an arrogant and baffling sense of entitlement. Why should England have won and why shouldn't Russia or Qatar? England's odd reaction is made stranger considering it was eliminated from the first round of the two rounds of voting - it wasn't even close. There may be some element of denial here.
Some claim that the move was all about money - it probably was and there is nothing wrong with that at all. It will, after all, take money (and lots of it) to host these events and Russia and Qatar have it, and from all indications, a Global recession and massive cuts in public spending, England (and indeed Europe) doesn't. But logic and common sense aside, Fifa has also been aiming to put the 'World' into the World Cup.
In the 19 events since the beginning of the competition in 1930, over half (10 to be exact) were hosted by European nations (including England in 1966 - which they won), Italy and France got 2 opportunities at bat (in 2014 Brazil will have too), the US hosted once as did South Korea/Japan, and the rest were hosted by a mix of Central and South American nations. This year saw an African nation hosting for the very first time. Each of these nations had a 'first time', Russia and Qatar deserve no less.
Indeed, the WC was seeing a revolving door of winners and qualifiers happily broken by Spain, first time winner in the 2010 competition. The danger was to see a similar list of the 'usual suspects' taking on hosting duties and benefiting from the potential commerce thereof. Fifa is absolutely right to spread opportunity - one that doesn't always guarantee profit as the gains for hosts are usually over the long term.
Some objectors to Qatar's selection cite a small population, its negligible footballing presence, relatively small size and very high summer temperatures as the main reasons that make Fifa's decision a questionable one. Qatar countered with a promise of climate controlled stadia and the relocation of the same to developing countries after the competition. A savvy and thoughtful response - and if the ambition, growth and wealth of the region is anything to go by, they are capable of living up to their word. Still, we speak in future terms - all is just a promise, and if it makes those objectors feel better (and it shouldn't) there's still time for both events to be catastrophic failures.
A Panorama documentary has also been blamed for England's failed bid, with claims that voters, offended by accusations of bribery in the show, spurned the Brits proposal. If this was the case, it may be justified - certainly England's graceless response to their loss doesn't help. It may betray the attitude of a First World nation that is historically accustomed to getting what it wants simply because it wants it. Perhaps the best lesson for those English who are mortified by the loss and consider a Middle Eastern host 'a disgrace', is that the World Cup doesn't revolve around them.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment