By J Hutcherson - WASHINGTON, DC (May 31, 2011) US Soccer Players -- Show of hands from anyone really surprised that Mondays FIFA press conference ended up a lesson in etiquette directed at the members of the media present in the room. Ok, maybe the etiquette lesson was a surprise, but the response from FIFA the day after the Ethics Committee provisionally suspended two Confederation presidents? Yeah, not so much.
For some, that’s the latest in a set of evidence showing everything wrong with World soccer’s governing body. For others, including many within FIFA, it’s just another example of business as usual. After all, this is what they do.
No problem is too big to end up getting subsumed by whatever comes next on FIFA’s agenda. That includes suspending a presidential candidate a few days before the election.
There’s a long held and established shame problem at multiple levels of soccer’s bureaucracy. In as much, too many functionaries simply have none. Like we saw yesterday, they can move past what should be fundamental problems in a couple of sentences and turn their focus toward something completely different. It’s funny in its own perverse way.
It’s almost possible to come away with the feeling that FIFA’s leadership is surprised that anybody takes this stuff so seriously. After all, the members of FIFA have given us multiple indications that they certainly don’t. Grand ideas of responsible governance and the kind of transparency that would make established democracies jealous don’t get a lot of play from an organization with the primary purpose of organizing soccer and maximizing revenue as they see fit. Go figure. It’s a fiefdom in the classic sense, and in their view trying to change that misses the point.
Enter England’s venerable Football Association, the oldest such organization in world soccer. We should probably go ahead and overlook the fun and games that have happened within that organization over the last couple of decades while letting them take the stage through a public statement from chairman David Bernstein. We’ll summarize the intro by reminding everyone that England isn’t voting in the upcoming election.
Events of the last few days have reinforced our views, and we call on FIFA and ask other national associations to support us with two initiatives.
First, to postpone the election and give credibility to this process, so any alternative reforming candidate could have the opportunity to stand for President.
Secondly, to appoint a genuinely independent external party to make recommendations regarding improved governance and compliance procedures and structures throughout the FIFA decision making processes for consideration by the full membership.
This has been a very damaging time for the reputation of FIFA and therefore the whole of football. To improve confidence in the way the game is governed at the very top, we believe these requests would be a positive step forward and the minimum that should take place.
Scotland has already jumped on board, with their CEO Stewart Regan asking for an independent ethics committee along with the call for better governance and transparency. Fair enough all around, especially considering recent events. Then again….
Is it worth wondering what would’ve happened had that envelope FIFA president Sepp Blatter opened last December had England’s name rather than Russia’s? Is it worth asking if any of the ensuing issues would’ve occurred had England gotten its World Cup? Sepp Blatter has already made that particular point more than once, and he’s not exactly wrong to stress it. If the process including all of the rumors of scandalous behavior in and around yet another FIFA vote ended up in favor of England, would it still have been a problem?
Broadly speaking, that’s the real issue in play here. It’s not a sudden realization that FIFA might be susceptible to criticism that they tend towards self improvement for a small group of insiders rather than the good of the game. It’s not even pushing potentially shady voting practices out into the blinding light of public perception. It’s that the system in place produced a result that a subset of those insiders really didn’t like.
England abstaining could’ve and should’ve happened at any point over the last two decades. You can probably go ahead and extend that time line further back. That’s part of the response FIFA is presenting. Why should they act as if anything has changed when it most decidedly has not?
That might not be what the crusading journalists and concerned fans want to hear, but then again all of us have also been part of the environment that’s allowed FIFA to reach this point.
Few, if any, will stop watching games because they disagree with how FIFA is operated. The real world rarely works like that, especially for something like pro sports. It’s not the management of individual teams or even a league in question here. It’s an umbrella organization that has still managed to put on a highly popular event every four years.
What does this say about all of us, part of that footballing family that FIFA likes to extend membership to whenever it’s convenient? Not very much in either direction.
Unfortunately for those wanting sweeping change in the name of all that’s right with this game, it might not be that obvious or easy. What’s best for soccer? What isn’t FIFA doing to achieve that?
Even in the current climate, it’s still worth paying attention to something Blatter has been saying before and during yesterday’s lesson in journalistic etiquette. He doesn’t appoint the Executive Committee. They’re voted on by the member associations with those association leaders in turn decided by their domestic membership.
As focused as world soccer currently is on the top, producing FIFA bureaucrats more in tune with the ideals of responsible governance and transparency starts locally. That’s not a quick solution. It will take time along with opportunity and a willingness on the part of qualified people to step up and take leadership roles. As with every elected democracy, it’s also no guarantee.
Which brings us back to England. Our current leader in structured outrage has done very little internally to show they understand how to make impactful change. Multiple reorganizations along with multiple people taking their association’s top job. The result? Scandals both financial and personal, a stadium that might not have been necessary, and a World Cup bid that ended up getting dismissed by many as simply not competitive.
It’s easy enough to downplay this type of criticism when it’s made by those already involved with FIFA. After all, enough of the world is convinced that FIFA is opposed to anything that might mean less opportunity for graft. That’s naïve.
Soccer is already past the point where FIFA, it’s Confederations, and their associations realize how much money the game can generate. What’s needed now is a restatement of purpose. The current FIFA leadership has pushed development and bringing the World Cup to new territories. That’s the big picture impact of the Blatter presidencies. We’ve seen the practical limits of that vision. We’re now in a situation where it will be another four years before there’s a clear idea of what comes next.
Comments, questions, solutions to problems that have yet to present themselves. Please, tell me all about it.
