By J Hutcherson - WASHINGTON, DC (May 31, 2011) US Soccer Players -- By the time you read this who knows what might’ve happened in the fun and games that is the FIFA Congress currently taking place in Switzerland. What was supposed to be about deciding who will be the president of FIFA for the next four years has devolved into a fight for power on many fronts, including CONCACAF.
After business hours on the East Coast on Tuesday, news spread that CONCACAF interim president Lisle Austin had fired general secretary Chuck Blazer. Bold move, considering Austin took that interim title just a couple of days ago after CONCACAF president Jack Warner was preliminarily suspended by FIFA’s Ethics Committee. Turns out it was a little too bold, with CONCACAF itself announcing the president doesn’t have that particular authority. Even later that evening, interim president Austin responding to that by 1) claiming the statutes support the firing, and 2) accusing Blazer of 'trespassing' by using CONCACAF's media relations to distribute that earlier press release.
So at least for now, it's an open question as to what the batting order actually is at CONCACAF. Lineup subject to change of course, giving all of us another unnecessary indication of the state of FIFA politics.
Meanwhile, reports have some or all of the Asian Football Confederation either heading home early or not voting for Blatter. This is a direct response to the treatment of former presidential candidate Mohamed Bin Hammam. England, Scotland, and whoever else joins their coalition in time for Wednesday’s vote are abstaining for different reasons. Caught in between are multiple associations that would probably like a quick resolution to all of this so they can simply move on.
Given the current climate, that seems like too much to ask. Again, we might already have Blatter confirmed for another four years by the time you read this, or something else might’ve happened. At this point, nothing is a given except for the likelihood that we’re not done with the side shows, much less the main event.
For those keeping score at home, we’ve had a presidential candidate quit on the eve of the election, that same candidate banned along with another Confederation president the very next day, a Confederation threatening to leave, and now a leadership battle within another Confederation. Oh, and the current and likely future FIFA president lecturing the media after ducking their obvious and pertinent questions.
At least publicly, this FIFA Congress might’ve set a new high mark for entertainment value. The train wreck aspect has certainly intrigued media outlets that normally wouldn’t have bothered. Short of yet another day of drama, tragedy, or better yet dramedy you get the feeling that most at FIFA really want it to be next month already. By that time, the major and some minor European clubs will be touring the World, the home fans will be gearing up for the start of the season, and most will have simply moved on.
That remains FIFA’s greatest strength, that calendar so maligned by club managers all over the World. There’s always something else, something to attract attention, and hopefully it’s not whatever FIFA president Blatter uses in place of the more accurate ‘crisis.’
The English Example
I received a lengthy and well argued email in response to yesterday’s Daily. The crux was that England’s Football Association deserves ample credit for simply trying. By taking their complaints public and abstaining from the FIFA presidential vote, they’re doing more than any other Association. With that in mind, a column reminding people of the FA’s own recent past isn’t exactly helpful. Fair enough, even though I’m sticking with my original point.
The FA doesn’t have enough room to talk, certainly not as much as they’re willing to take. It would be different if their own organization was an example of responsible governance and transparency. It isn’t, they’re not, and that impacts the message they’re trying to send.
Full points for the message, but it’s cloaked in the disappointment that the current FIFA system didn’t work out for them. That’s its own problem, one that has less to do with responsible governance and transparency and more to do with what one particular country has decided is fair. Namely, that the work they put into getting the 2018 had actually paid off. The first step for England is getting over that, and from all appearances they haven’t.
What the FA’s position has become is a lobby for a single issue that only really impacts them. Had other nations been interested in supporting the FA’s version of FIFA’s future, they would’ve probably gotten more than two votes to host the 2018 World Cup. If the system is so corrupt that England never stood a chance, what were they doing bidding in the first place?
Maybe the whole thing did catch England by surprise. They certainly responded immediately with the expected outrage and that hasn’t died down in the intervening months. But it’s worth asking at what point would the vote have been ok. Losing in the second round, pushing it to a third? Or did England have to win for all to be right with the world of FIFA? If it’s that, they’re not the ones to be leading a transparency revolution.
Comments, questions, solutions to problems that have yet to present themselves. Please, tell me all about it.
