In the final article of my 3 part series looking at FIFA and the World Cup Host Selection Process, I will analyze FIFA's choice to have Russia and Qatar host the 2018 and 2022 World Cups respectively. Specifically, I will look at the individual merits for the perceived front runners for hosting the tournament for each year, as well as give my thoughts on why Russia and Qatar ended up getting the nod over the other candidates.
2018 World Cup
Countries on the ballot:
Belgium/Netherlands
England
Portugal/Spain
Russia*
Out of the 4 bids for the 2018 World Cup, it was widely considered to be between England and Russia for the right to host the football championships.
Belgium/Netherlands were unlikely from the start. Between the joint bid, the fact they hosted the Euro 2000 tournament, and FIFA expressing concerns about the necessary government cooperation to host a successful tournament; it seemed a longshot from the start.
England went into voting as one of the favorites to host the 2018 World Cup. It is the birthplace of modern football. The bid was led by famous public ambassadors such as Prime Minister David Cameron, Prince William, and, of course, David Beckham. Much of the infrastructure necessary to host the World Cup is already in place, and the country hadn't hosted the event since 1966
Portugal/Spain was hurt by accusations of an alliance with Qatar in a deal to trade votes for the Middle Eastern country's support. Russian Sports Minister Vitaly Mutko openly criticized the agreement in an apparent act of gamesmanship. Cristiano Ronaldo ended up not attending the announcement. Not to mention the region isn't exactly thriving financially with concerns about the countries' rapidly expanding national debt. Ultimately, they were unlikely to win from the start, and didn't appear to attempt to dispel this foregone conclusion through additional lobbying.
Russia was a favorite under the premise that FIFA is actively trying to spread the game to all corners of the world. It also benefited from its successful bid to host the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, demonstrating confidence in the country's ability to host major international sporting events. Money isn't a problem for major bureaucrats who are willing to pony up the funds, an estimated $3.82 billion, which is the largest amongst the 4 candidate bids. The decision by Vladimir Putin to not attend the ceremony in Zurich, which he indirectly credited to "the unscrupulous actions of the British media", concerns about racism and corruption in Russia, and the lowest projected ticket allotment were the only considerable obstacles to a successful bid.
2022 World Cup
Countries on the ballot:
Australia
Japan/South Korea
Qatar*
United States
Australia was considered the dark horse pick for the 2022 World Cup. The country hosted a successful Summer Olympics in 2000, and the majority of the stadiums that would be used for matches are already built within the major cities. The major argument against their bid was the time zone difference effecting television viewership in the United States and Europe. I disagree with this assertion simply because ratings weren't severely impacted during the 2002 World Cup in Japan/South Korea which shares a very similar time zone; although I personally would watch fewer games for this reason.
Japan/South Korea hosted the event in 2002. For this reason I don't think either country had a chance to host the World Cup in 2022. It was simply too soon, and I believe the next host from Asia will be China or India due to their growth potential.
Qatar was considered a legitimate candidate to host the FIFA World Cup in 2022 pretty much from the outset. Not only does the country have an outrageous amount of money to invest in the tournament; it would promote FIFA's self-proclaimed "vision" of bringing football to all corners of the earth (see Russia above), and the first in the Middle-East. At the same time, there are clearly many drawbacks to hosting the event in Qatar. First, the average temperature in the summer is around 106 degrees Fahrenheit in June/July, and can reach 120 degrees Fahrenheit. The proposed remedy to this issue, air conditioned stadiums, certainly wouldn't be good for the environment, another aspect FIFA claims to take into consideration when looking at bid proposals. The fact that the country is slightly smaller than the state of Connecticut isn't appealing either, and the city where the final is proposed to be played doesn't currently exist. I could list more concerns, but I digress...
The United States had a simple case to make to host the World Cup in 2022. All of the stadiums that would be used are in place with nothing more than minor renovations necessary. The official bid cited 18 venues in 18 cities, and that is high-balling the actual number that would be used. The estimated number of tickets that would be put on sale for the World Cup in the United States was 4,957,000. That number was 42% more than Qatar is predicted to provide, and over a million more than any of the countries bidding for the 2018 or 2022 World Cup estimated selling. The argument against having it in the United States is the potential for terrorist attacks or violence, and then the rest of the world hating America/Americans. I make the latter argument, tongue-in-cheek. These two points are quickly offset by the fact that Bill "Slick Willie" Clinton was one of our ambassadors.
Host of 2018 World Cup: Russia
FIFA Executive Committee were caught on camera agreeing to sell their World Cup votes, one in exchange for £500,000, the equivalent of about $800,000, and the other for payment "to finance a sports academy". The officials involved were the Nigerian executive committee member and the president of the Oceania Football Confederation respectively, and the report was openly condemned by a lobbyist for Russia's bid, as well as the president of the Asian Football Confederation (Qatar). Then on November 29th, the Panorama current news program on BBC ran a segment alleging 3 senior FIFA officials, all with votes in the 2018 and 2022 World Cup Host Selection, accepted bribes from a sports marketing firm in the 1990's in exchange for World Cup rights.
This was the nail in England's proverbial coffin.
Putin not showing up to accept the decision on Russia's behalf was more likely a tactical move, a public demonstration of Russia's growing international influence and arrogance, than him conceding defeat in their bid proposal.
Host of 2022 World Cup: Qatar
Admittedly, I am slightly biased in regards to this decision. At the same time, I can't find one good reason for why Qatar was chosen to host the World Cup in 2022. Advocating the spread of football to all corners of the earth doesn't hold weight in this instance because Australia/Oceania has never hosted a World Cup either. Maybe in the case of the 2018 decision advocating the promotion of the game is an acceptable explanation, but not when there are 2 other viable candidates, the U.S.A and Australia, who have established infrastructure in place and a track record of success hosting international sports competitions.
The fact that Qatar's football team, currently ranked 90th in the world, will automatically qualify for the 2022 World Cup is unfortunate. They have never qualified for the tournament in its existence, and it will likely be an embarrassing showing for their team. I realize Qatar/Middle Eastern culture is different than in the United States, but if the U.S. men's national team got destroyed on its own turf it would likely erase any interest and forward progress previously made in legitimizing football in the country. Since this is a likely scenario for Qatar, I would argue that this is not the best way to spread the game to that region.
In my opinion, Qatar was chosen because of the estimated $65 billion dollars they plan on investing over the next 11 years on building the stadiums, hotels, and the city where the World Cup Final will be hosted. This will be good for the Middle Eastern economies in the near future, and will certainly continue to provide jobs in the region up to the 2022 tournament. Yet, I don't see any sustainable positive economic effects from the event after its conclusion. Apparently the organizers don't either since they are planning on dismantling many of the stadiums that will be used and shipping off seats and other parts to less fortunate countries for use there. While this is a nice gesture, this is tough to justify, especially in light of the recent world economic environment.
In the end, I hope that Qatar is able to host a successful World Cup in 2022, but they clearly have their work cut out for them over the next 11 years. Ultimately, I think that the United States or Australia would have been much better choices, but the key to that statement is "I think" and in reality, "money talks".
-NLW
Afterthoughts:
My next article will take a closer look at the potential for a lockout in the NFL next season, and the economics behind the current deadlock between players and owners.
I also hope to be able to post with a little more frequency for the foreseeable future. I have been in the midst of juggling a few projects professionally over the past month, and I recently freed up a little extra time by postponing my involvement in one of them. I look forward to getting back to writing on issues that interest me, and providing a look into the reach of money within athletics at all levels.
No comments:
Post a Comment