After we discussed the logistics in the first part, lets deal with the "technicalities". There were lot of noises about the technical flaws of the winning bids. Hosting a world cup has never been (and will never be) a technical decision. Right? If Russia's bid was catastrophic from the technical perspective -leading to the claim that those who voted for Russia are FIFAnatically corrupted- then why did Mr. Geoff Thompson -England's FIFA ExCo representative-vote for Russia -the weakest bid technically- in the second round? Of course he is not corrupted -because he is English and English gents don't -EVER!- do that, the same as English players do not -NEVER!- dive.
Obviously Mr. Geoff Thompson had his own reasons. But why is it hard to believe that there are some people -who are not English- who might also have their own reasons to vote in the same direction?
Is it true that BBC panorama program had an impact on FIFA ExCo voting? You bet. Is there anything wrong about that? Following English media reactions after the voting, one argument sums it all:
"Voting for Russia proved the claims about FIFA's corruption. FIFA had a chance to clear its name by voting for England, they wasted it!"
I see...Well, BBC plan went in the wrong direction then. Timing the program just before the voting was meant to create a pressure on the ExCo to "clear their names" by voting for England. There is no other explanation for the timing of the program. The thing is, the BBC played it so wrong. In Fact, if the Exco voted for England, that will prove everything said about their corruption. It will sound as if they made a panic voting, trying to Buy England's silence. The competition between England and Russia was so close, as the telegraph described the two bids before the voting:
--------------------------------------------
EnglandTechnical report in brief: Fifa risk ranking: 14 low risk categories, 2 medium risk and a low overall operational risk. Report reveals England has made the most detailed proposal, and praises both legacy plans and commercial strength of the bid.
Can they win? Yes, but they’ll have to come from behind to do it. Major challenge to make it in to the final round against Spain or Russia, but if they do it’s winnable.
Odds: (William Hill) 13-8
Russia
Technical report in brief: Russia has five areas of medium risk, with air transport judged a high risk because of the absence of a reliable rail network and concerns over the pressure this would put on air travel.
Can they win? Definite contenders and received wisdom has them vying with Spain in the final round, but Russia are chasing many of the same votes as England, and may not be the clear favorites.
Betting odds: 8-11
--------------------------------------------
Then the BBC attempt was intended to add more weigh to England's bid, but it was not well-calculated and causes an irreversible damage.
One of the aspects of England's bid flaw, was the messages they tried to send through there campaign. Now seriously, in a country where there are lot of Excellent marketing consultants it is astonishing how bad the campaign was from marketing perspective. After the bidding, English officials were talking about "They don't like us because they believe we are arrogant" then in their campaign you only find slogans about"Bring it back home" and bragging about this and that. Bad. Just Bad. talking about "it has been a long time since the competition was hosted in England" sound smart. But it still give more credentials for other bidder complaining that the tournament has NEVER been hosted not only in Russia but in Eastern Europe all together. They should have worked more on the message they want to present for England's bid, rather than getting too confident about the technicalities.
Then there are suggestions like "Putin called some voters -personally". But in some other interviews England's representatives leave you astonished while telling how some FIFA members promised the prime minister, Beckham and the royal family to vote for England, then they didn't. And please..."They promised to vote for us"...Ask anyone who was involved in any kind of elections from classroom representatives to national leaderships they will all tell you how naive this complain sounds.
Did Russia (and Qatar) try to create intensives for Exco members to vote their way? Hm...One of the members is from Thailand. England arranged a friendly match to be played against Thailand to help world cup bid . Why will England need that if it is all about technicalities where England is supposed to have the best chance? Now there are rumors they are canceling it after the voting . Is THAT "fair bidding"? Isn't there any conflict of interest there? Thats corruption, no matter what dictionary you check. Thats just one example of many we know, and more we don't. So lets stop this "we played it fair...poor we..." claims. The only difference between different bidders is that some had more intensives to offer than others. Fullstop.
Then you wonder, where were all the whiners -at least- in the past two decades? There were lot of incidents where people stepped in to complain about FIFA's corruption while the current preachers were hiding in their holes. Now everyone want to become a national hero, and its as easy as screaming "Corrupted!!" While carrying a banner with FIFA's name on it marked by a red X. Then FA chairman Roger Burden ride Alexander's horse announcing he will quit as a protest against FIFA corruption. But before anyone HAIL Burden's English pride, alow me to share this little irrelevant detail: he was actually planning to quit anyway. But now he can exit passing under the bow of glore, rather than sneaking from the back door. Good radiance.
It is so wrong to look at the technical reports and jump to conclusions. If the technical reports decide it all, then why do we wait the voting? Let's refine the technical criteria as far as possible and decide the best host per se. Obviously we will end up having one country in each continent that is capable to create the best infrastructure in the continent and the world cup will keep dancing between handful number of countries for ever.
It wasnt a technical decision to play the world cup in USA 1994. It wasnt a technical decision to play the world cup in South Africa. It barely was a technical decision to offer the world cup to any country. So why now? Higher risk? Less qualified? Well, it depends on how you see it.
Keep in mind that we are talking about a world cup that will take place 12 years from now. Taking the economic curve of Qatar -for example- and comparing it to any other contender, it is easy to predict that Qatar's economy will be more reliable in the following 12 years to meet the world cup demands than the rest. Is Spain-Portugal 2018 more reliable than Qatar 2022? Technically -and at the moment- they are better. Yet, in Spain they are failing to meet the demands of managing the LIGA, even though -technically- they can.
I have a serious doubt that this whole EU will have to answer some big questions in the following few years and there is a big chance that it collapse.
In the current economic difficulties where everyone is demanding cutting down costs, it will be easy to arrange a campaign in USA (2 years from now?) to generate public opinion that oppose spending on a tournament a massive segment of the citizens dont even follow the sport it will host. I am aware the basic infrastructure is there, but you still need to reserve a budget for all the customizations needed to meet the demands of the tournament. And lets not start a discussion about "profitable tournament", there are no profitable tournaments for the hosting countries anymore. We can play by numbers and stretch it one way or another, same as Greece did before. But the fact is that all the big tournaments in the past few years from world cup to Olympics caused economic challenges afterward in the hosting countries.
Was all that in mind when FIFA decided the best alternative to host the world cup?Was it more relevant to only consider the current technical advantages of all bidders? or was it right to try to forecast long term dis/advantages? especially for a tournament that will take place 12 years from now. I cant claim any of the mentioned points were the incentives behind voting for this nation or that. But it is easy to see that there is another face for the story other than "they bought it undeservedly".
People forget another factor FIFA focus on: Offering the chance for new countries to host the world cup. All the alternatives for 2022 hosted the tournament in the past two decades-beside Australia and Qatar. Thats an important factor to take in consediration, and while Qatar's bid was extremely impressive the way they put it, Australian's were not as convincing. Qatar took all the notes presented in FIFA's technical report and worked on it till the presentation day showing strong intentions and determination that they want to make it happen. No doubt, that bring lot of reliability, confidence, and votes.
Next: My favorite -last part: democracy, terrorism, and the holly horses of western values.
Special thanks for Gabriele Marcotti for all the information he provide about this subject. He provided lot of the material I used in this post, though he carrys no responsibility about anything published in this article.
Maybe for the first time, I had no clear favorites. Yet, if I had a vote, I would have voted for Russia and Australia taking in consideration their geographic location on the planet’s map and the fact that they never hosted the competition before. No doubt, Middle East is a fitting region for a worldcup –again if you browse the map of previous worldcup tournaments. But Qatar? I don’t know about that. UAE (with Qatar maybe), Egypt, Morocco, or some other co-hosting creative arrangements like Syria-Lebanon, Syria-Jordan, etc… In that deserted corner of my mind, I could sense the cross paths leading Qatar to pull out a surprise, but I refused to believe it will happen that fast. Till the last moment, I thought Qatar’s campaign was more a PR project promoting the country, and creating a portfolio for the following attempts. I was aware they WILL get a decent number of votes, though not that many.
The moment the result was announced, the world got crazy screaming statements range from FIFA’s corruption to Middle Eastern cannibals. The question is, did anyone give this a second thought, trying to understand what really happened?
First: Logistics
Before getting into FIFA’s Evil spirit, technicalities, and human virginity crap that we read, lets state a given that no one seems to get: This was a voting battle. The one who earns most of the votes, get the cheek. I do believe it is there where some serious contenders failed miserably. They thought it is about promoting the message “we are the best”. Seriously? Now how naïve is that? Since when any election has anything to do with “who is better”? Yes…yes…In fairy tales and pink notebooks. Agreed. In real world, this is laughable. Silly. Elections- and voting battles- are about campaigns, connections, presentations, interests’ concurrence and promises. Unless if you really believe the prime minister, president, or governor you just voted for is the genius of your nation. Here is some news for you: The winner is the candidate who happened to stand on the cross paths of the position keepers’ interests. The big bulls. You don’t like that? Neither do I. But we both know the world will keep going.
When you decide to play a game, you need to be aware of the rules before you step in. If the rules are that obvious since day one, don’t get involved then if you failed you complain: This is not fair! I hate this game! I don’t want to play with you anymore! CHANGE THE RULES! Childish.
While the main contenders were busy bulling Platini every Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday and bashing Platter for the rest of the days, other contenders were sewing their voting canvas one stitch at a time. Take Qatar as an example, being an Arabic country means an initial boost for its campaign both in Asia and Africa. Translate that. Votes. Most importantly, they had a good understanding about who really wear the pants in this process. Some people like to believe it is all about Blatter. He is the one who decide and the rest follow. This belief goes deep in time since the Havelange-Johansson war that led the big European nations to consider FIFA as the father of all evil-though there is some truth in that. Now here the thing: Lots of the voting members who actually decided who hosts the world cup are more fragile to their national or continental pressure than they are Blatter’s puppies. Through the mentioned channels, Qatar and most probably Russia sneaked in tempting or bargaining interests to seal the deal. That’s while England campaigners were celebrating Beckham’s inclusion in their team. He will make the speech that turns the world around and bring glory to the Island. That’s when USA thought Morgan Freeman can through a charismatic spell on everyone then snatch the big prize. That’s mixing act with fact. Australia played the “we are the ones with no enemies, we play it smoothly” card. So as Netherlands-Belgium. It is not if you have enemies, but how many friend you have who can translate their support to votes. Let’s not start talking about the laziness of Spain-Portugal and how far the economic complexities effected it. Their campaign sounded like “we want it…but it’s ok if we don’t get it. Really.”
Was it possible for Blatter to put pressure against Qatar and Russia? That’s the second fold of the deal. Qatari Bin Hammam, and South Korea's Chung Mong-Joon are two presidential candidates who can threaten Blatter’s position in the FIFA. Bin Hammam had a good bargain to offer and Chung Mong-Joon knows that he can’t dream to become FIFA’s president if he makes Qatar’s Lobby in the FIFA angry A.K.A a deciding number of countries in Africa and Asia. Issa Hayatou in the other hand is the long serving member of Africa, he need to do favors for North African countries supporting Qatar. Maybe, if England, Australia or USA were able to stand behind Brazil's member Ricardo Teixeira (another FIFA presidential candidate), and succeeded to convince enough FIFA members to get involved in the bargain they could have created a countering leverage. Why didn’t they do it? Good question. Because they wanted to play it fairly? Wrong answer. They just weren’t as bright as a country they like to call “700,000 inhabitants”.
Does that prove the need to change the voting regulations? I can see a solid argument supporting this suggestion and I tend to agree on it to some extend. But let’s not get too patriotically driven while demanding a change. It was so wrong for some to take the approach of good people (countries) bad people (countries), those who are the knights of democracy and ethical conduct and the others who exist only to damage all that. At least the current –FIFA- system still respects the voting of the majority regardless of how the voting decision was made. It is far better than a system where one vote can cancel the will of all other 191 members, ironically supported by the loudest voices demanding a change in the FIFA. We didn't hear any voices demanding fairness. All our international (and national) palaces are made of glass. So let’s combine efforts in the right direction, if we really want to make a move. A change based on principles, not on interests.
It is extremely unfair to claim it is all about corruption and buying votes, denying the effort made by the winning countries and ignore the mistakes made by the rest. Mind you one of the big contributor in the Qatari achievement is an English man whom the English campaign decided not to hire thinking he will damage their attempt. Qatar knew exactly what they were doing. They left nothing for chance and did much more than just preparing speeches and spreading smiles. From the quality presentations to the stunning stadiums’ designs and ideas, to the storyboard supporting the need to host the tournament as a message of peace in the Middle East, taking the World Cup to a Muslim nation for the first time and to break down barriers between Islam and the West.
A small country succeeded to play the cards right on the international level, getting gains from a system that is made to serve only the big boys-as usual. For once, the great nations need to accept being on the receiver end.
But wait! Technically the winners were the worst candidates! Those abusingterroristdiscriminatingkillers!!! We must not let them host a world cup!