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.
