By J Hutcherson - WASHINGTON, DC (June 6, 2011) US Soccer Players -- It would seem that CONCACAF has decided to go with the onward and upward response to the recent fun and games at their highest administrative level. Instead of concerning ourselves with who is the rightful president, just focus on goals scored at Cowboys Stadium. After all, that’s the game and it’s what this is supposed to be all about.
Easy cover for an organization that has yet to publicly provide much in the way of answers as to why we’re on our second interim president in just a couple of weeks. It’s also an easy jumping off point for critics of CONCACAF in particular and FIFA in general. There was a brief opportunity to here to show the region can transition past those that have been running it for two decades if necessary. Instead, what the region has shown in practice is that it is dependent upon the leadership it has kept in place for those two decades.
That’s no surprise, but it is troubling. Though despots and dictators would disagree, real leadership is making sure you’re not the only person who can keep things running. In a healthy organization, it’s a good thing that everyone is replaceable. Otherwise, it’s the old mom and pop shop criticism that was aimed at multiple associations, confederations, and FIFA in the bad old days.
In big picture terms, that’s the carryover from the lead-up to last week’s reelection of FIFA president Sepp Blatter. He appealed directly to that mom and pop mentality. Without him, it’s a black hole. That’s the transfer of power criticism in full force, and an ample reason for FIFA to consider imposing term limits on the presidency.
No one seemed to want to raise that idea even in theory, but it’s a healthy way forward if this really does turn out to be Blatter’s final four years in office. Assuming the American model, anyone elected would know two things: 1) there’s only one more election for them to contest, and 2) they have eight years to directly put forth their vision of FIFA. After that? Well, that’s the risk of a true democracy with contested elections.
Meanwhile, CONCACAF pushes forward while not really wanting to look back. Provisionally suspended president Jack Warner has opted against any actions that might further implicate Blatter in the cash for votes controversy that got Warner and once upon a time FIFA presidential candidate Mohamed Bin Hammam suspended in the first place. One would think the assumption is safe that Warner’s inaction suggests he could be getting his presidency back. One would also assume CONCACAF’s executive committee has no intention to fire their organization’s general secretary.
Again, no real surprise should that play out. FIFA isn’t setup to dispose of high level personnel unless it’s a direct response to something that fiscally impacts FIFA. Nothing Warner was accused of doing satisfies that definition, just the opposite in fact. General secretary Chuck Blazer’s role as whistleblower within his own organization has done nothing to convince CONCACAF’s executive committee they would be better off without him, and rightly so. When it comes to making sure CONCACAF is generating revenue, Blazer is the face of the franchise.
Though it wasn’t the most popular thing I’ve ever written, CONCACAF is lucky to have Blazer. Without him, the organization’s last two decades would be a very different story. He’s a consensus builder with a clear vision of how to generate money through CONCACAF’s properties. He’s also capable of getting that work done in an organization with divergent economic, political, and social backgrounds. His job isn’t as easy as he’s made it look, something worth considering when lampooning him or lumping him in with those that haven’t given anywhere near as much back to their organizations.
Extending this past CONCACAF, this is part of the problem with the sweeping reform movement from those outside of these organizations. It’s tempting to play fantasy FIFA executive. It almost always includes changing the basics in play. Normally out is the one vote per association, rewarding those countries that are more successful. The confederation model usually gets a revamp as well. Then our fantasy exec gets to work on the problems the current version of FIFA faces.
Yet what normally doesn’t get much discussion is that there are probably many within the current version of FIFA who would like to be able to fundamentally change their landscape. Who wouldn’t? Instead, they’re working within an organization setup not to distinguish between associations. That insistence skews everything they do, good and bad. It makes everything that much more difficult, including the job of building consensus.
What we’re left with is an organization that almost has to be dysfunctional. That’s extended to the Confederations and ultimately the associations. For an organization tasked with governing soccer, it’s a bizarre version of leadership. That’s the point of the fundamental change crowd. It’s also the big picture issue facing all levels of soccer governance moving forward.
Comments, questions, solutions to problems that have yet to present themselves. Please, tell me all about it.
