Sblatter! Are FIFA Beyond Parody?

Imagine if the chief executive of a multi-national corporation said that his female employees should wear skimpier clothes to work. Imagine if that same chief executive said that he was surprised to hear that there were allegations of bribery and corruption in his company's European operations but unperturbed to hear of these practices in Africa. Imagine that this same man then went on record and said that his gay customers should refrain from any sexual activities in certain countries, but that it was acceptable, indeed that it would be applauded in some nations, if one of his employees had an affair with a colleague's partner.

Your new uniform, miss.

Now imagine that the multi-national corporation this man runs will only do business with nations who are prepared to change their local laws at the whim of the corporation and willing to grant them charitable status, thus enabling them to make multi-million dollar profits and pay not one penny in tax. Imagine that the company will require the governments of the countries with which they do business to spend billions of dollars on infrastructure especially for the company's purposes but which become a redundant white elephant a month after completion.

One might expect that chief executive to be reprimanded, or perhaps asked to consider his position and resign, or perhaps he would be removed from his post. One might anticipate that many countries and other companies would be reluctant to deal with this man and his company. Unless of course his name is Joseph "Sepp" Blatter and the organisation is the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) of which he is President, because all of the above have been attributed to Herr Blatter and his organisation. [1]

Unless you have no interest in football or have been hiding in a cave over the last week or so, you will probably have heard of the fallout from the claim that the winning bids by Russia and Qatar to host the 2018 and 2022 World Cups have come under scrutiny following allegations that these bids were less than straightforward and above board. FIFA appointed American lawyer Michael Garcia to investigate and it came as no surprise to many people when FIFA announced that there was no case for Russia or Qatar to answer, although criticism of England's failed bid was something of a bolt from the blue. While it didn't surprise some people, one man who was astonished was the investigator, Michael Garcia himself, who said that the report  contained "numerous materially incomplete and erroneous representations." 

See no evil...

In this regard FIFA remind me of Humpty Dumpty; when Humpty Dumpty said a word  it meant " just what I choose it to mean" and no doubt FIFA firmly believed that if they said a thing then it must be so and that everyone would simply accept it. 

Perhaps surprised by the outcry and downright incredulity that their announcement was met with, FIFA have now submitted a criminal complaint to Switzerland's attorney general, although they have not gone as far as suggesting that the bidding process will either be re-opened or even investigated.[2]

...hear no evil...

This volte face by FIFA is quite a shock; one might even say it is a welcome surprise and that perhaps FIFA are acting honourably and placing this matter in front of the Swiss authorities...except. Except that FIFA ethics judge Hans-Joachim Eckert (who published Garcia's findings and cannot understand the American's criticism) still says that there is insufficient evidence to question the entire bidding process. FIFA steadfastly refuse to publish Garcia's report in full [3] saying to do so would violate their own laws and state laws, but meanwhile a whistleblower who provided evidence to Garcia has had to quit her position and says she has been discredited (Eckert ruled her evidence unreliable). Furthermore the woman says that her safety has been compromised. Sadly it is typical of a large organisation which is able to effectively act as judge and jury over allegations against itself, then simply insist that it has no case to answer while simultaneously monstering its accusers.

...speak no evil.

Should any of this surprise us? FIFA are, like any large, transnational organisation, vulnerable to allegations of corruption, of chicanery, of wrongdoing of one sort or another. For example, in all my years with HSBC we consistently had the core standards of behaviour which the bank expected  drummed into us. We were regularly reminded of the ethics, integrity and probity that were expected of us, so was I surprised to hear that the bank were one of six being fined a total of £2.6 billion for attempting to manipulate foreign exchange rates? No, not really. The reality is that at the sharp end, where the money is made, large organisations cannot afford to be especially squeamish about how things work. Management inevitably adopt a JFDI[4] attitude because claiming to be meeting certain standards of behaviour when your organisation is not, is easier to fudge than profits. If we see this sort of behaviour in banks and other transnational corporations should we expect an organisation like FIFA to be any different?

Football administrators in both England and in Germany have been talking about a potential boycott of the next World Cup. Were it simply England doing the talking I suspect that FIFA would shrug their shoulders and call the FA's bluff; there is little love lost in that relationship.  But once the Germans, the World Champions, start talking in those terms, then FIFA have to listen, have to be seen to be doing something, hence their complaint to the Swiss attorney general. Personally, I feel it is little more than a sop and that little will come of it and the bandwagon will continue to roll on its merry way in exactly the same manner to which we have become accustomed.

There have been calls for greater transparency in future World Cup bids and on the face of it that might be a good thing except it will inevitably drive the sort of behaviour that Garcia was investigating allegations of deeper and deeper underground. In some respects the only way to achieve total transparency is to endorse the payment of inducements to officials to look favourably on nations bids to host the World Cup. In the topsy-turvy world FIFA inhabit that is not as incredible as it might sound.  After all, in the same way that people like Richard Branson believe that the war on drugs has been lost and  advocate decriminalising them as a more effective means of control, so perhaps if payment for bids is inevitable it ought to be accepted and regulated.

"Bad, inconsistent, incoherent propaganda" according to one critic.

Finally, and with absolutely no relevance to the allegations about the Russian and Qatari bids, how can one take seriously an organisation that spends £16 million on a vanity project  like the film, United Passions, as FIFA has done and in which the heroes are FIFA's administrators? 

Some things truly are beyond parody.

---

[1] See http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/15781405

[2] At the time of writing. This whole affair is such that by the time you read this, events may well have moved on.

[3] Again, by the time you read this they may have changed their mind, although I am doubtful.

[4] If JFDI means nothing to you, then Google it (carefully).