Maybe for the first time, I had no clear favorites. Yet, if I had a vote, I would have voted for Russia and Australia taking in consideration their geographic location on the planet’s map and the fact that they never hosted the competition before. No doubt, Middle East is a fitting region for a worldcup –again if you browse the map of previous worldcup tournaments. But Qatar? I don’t know about that. UAE (with Qatar maybe), Egypt, Morocco, or some other co-hosting creative arrangements like Syria-Lebanon, Syria-Jordan, etc… In that deserted corner of my mind, I could sense the cross paths leading Qatar to pull out a surprise, but I refused to believe it will happen that fast. Till the last moment, I thought Qatar’s campaign was more a PR project promoting the country, and creating a portfolio for the following attempts. I was aware they WILL get a decent number of votes, though not that many.
The moment the result was announced, the world got crazy screaming statements range from FIFA’s corruption to Middle Eastern cannibals. The question is, did anyone give this a second thought, trying to understand what really happened?
First: Logistics
Before getting into FIFA’s Evil spirit, technicalities, and human virginity crap that we read, lets state a given that no one seems to get: This was a voting battle. The one who earns most of the votes, get the cheek. I do believe it is there where some serious contenders failed miserably. They thought it is about promoting the message “we are the best”. Seriously? Now how naïve is that? Since when any election has anything to do with “who is better”? Yes…yes…In fairy tales and pink notebooks. Agreed. In real world, this is laughable. Silly. Elections- and voting battles- are about campaigns, connections, presentations, interests’ concurrence and promises. Unless if you really believe the prime minister, president, or governor you just voted for is the genius of your nation. Here is some news for you: The winner is the candidate who happened to stand on the cross paths of the position keepers’ interests. The big bulls. You don’t like that? Neither do I. But we both know the world will keep going.
When you decide to play a game, you need to be aware of the rules before you step in. If the rules are that obvious since day one, don’t get involved then if you failed you complain: This is not fair! I hate this game! I don’t want to play with you anymore! CHANGE THE RULES! Childish.
While the main contenders were busy bulling Platini every Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday and bashing Platter for the rest of the days, other contenders were sewing their voting canvas one stitch at a time. Take Qatar as an example, being an Arabic country means an initial boost for its campaign both in Asia and Africa. Translate that. Votes. Most importantly, they had a good understanding about who really wear the pants in this process. Some people like to believe it is all about Blatter. He is the one who decide and the rest follow. This belief goes deep in time since the Havelange-Johansson war that led the big European nations to consider FIFA as the father of all evil-though there is some truth in that. Now here the thing: Lots of the voting members who actually decided who hosts the world cup are more fragile to their national or continental pressure than they are Blatter’s puppies. Through the mentioned channels, Qatar and most probably Russia sneaked in tempting or bargaining interests to seal the deal. That’s while England campaigners were celebrating Beckham’s inclusion in their team. He will make the speech that turns the world around and bring glory to the Island. That’s when USA thought Morgan Freeman can through a charismatic spell on everyone then snatch the big prize. That’s mixing act with fact. Australia played the “we are the ones with no enemies, we play it smoothly” card. So as Netherlands-Belgium. It is not if you have enemies, but how many friend you have who can translate their support to votes. Let’s not start talking about the laziness of Spain-Portugal and how far the economic complexities effected it. Their campaign sounded like “we want it…but it’s ok if we don’t get it. Really.”
Was it possible for Blatter to put pressure against Qatar and Russia? That’s the second fold of the deal. Qatari Bin Hammam, and South Korea's Chung Mong-Joon are two presidential candidates who can threaten Blatter’s position in the FIFA. Bin Hammam had a good bargain to offer and Chung Mong-Joon knows that he can’t dream to become FIFA’s president if he makes Qatar’s Lobby in the FIFA angry A.K.A a deciding number of countries in Africa and Asia. Issa Hayatou in the other hand is the long serving member of Africa, he need to do favors for North African countries supporting Qatar. Maybe, if England, Australia or USA were able to stand behind Brazil's member Ricardo Teixeira (another FIFA presidential candidate), and succeeded to convince enough FIFA members to get involved in the bargain they could have created a countering leverage. Why didn’t they do it? Good question. Because they wanted to play it fairly? Wrong answer. They just weren’t as bright as a country they like to call “700,000 inhabitants”.
Does that prove the need to change the voting regulations? I can see a solid argument supporting this suggestion and I tend to agree on it to some extend. But let’s not get too patriotically driven while demanding a change. It was so wrong for some to take the approach of good people (countries) bad people (countries), those who are the knights of democracy and ethical conduct and the others who exist only to damage all that. At least the current –FIFA- system still respects the voting of the majority regardless of how the voting decision was made. It is far better than a system where one vote can cancel the will of all other 191 members, ironically supported by the loudest voices demanding a change in the FIFA. We didn't hear any voices demanding fairness. All our international (and national) palaces are made of glass. So let’s combine efforts in the right direction, if we really want to make a move. A change based on principles, not on interests.
It is extremely unfair to claim it is all about corruption and buying votes, denying the effort made by the winning countries and ignore the mistakes made by the rest. Mind you one of the big contributor in the Qatari achievement is an English man whom the English campaign decided not to hire thinking he will damage their attempt. Qatar knew exactly what they were doing. They left nothing for chance and did much more than just preparing speeches and spreading smiles. From the quality presentations to the stunning stadiums’ designs and ideas, to the storyboard supporting the need to host the tournament as a message of peace in the Middle East, taking the World Cup to a Muslim nation for the first time and to break down barriers between Islam and the West.
A small country succeeded to play the cards right on the international level, getting gains from a system that is made to serve only the big boys-as usual. For once, the great nations need to accept being on the receiver end.
But wait! Technically the winners were the worst candidates! Those abusingterroristdiscriminatingkillers!!! We must not let them host a world cup!
