FIFA corrupted. Absolute FIFA corrupted absolutely

Thursday 2nd December. A time to remember for years to come, Russia and Qatar are announced as host for the 2018 and 2022 World Cups respectively. And possibly the day that FIFA bore the true depth of its corruption to the world.


Shock-waves rippled through the world. How had those two nations won the rights to host the World Cup? How had they managed it so convincingly? and why did the bids from England, the US and Australia do so poorly?

The media were quick to react with cries of foul play. The Daily Mail called it "the great Zurich stitch-up"  and the Times claimed, "The system of World Cup elections is abysmally corrupt. It is too small, making it easily manipulated, and it is too secret, protecting it from scrutiny." The Mirror went as far as to claim "Only Cameroon’s Issa Hayatou - ironically one of those named by Panorama on Monday - joined our Fifa delegate and former FA chairman Geoff Thompson in backing the bid"

Don't accuse just the British media of jealousy however as many other newspapers ran similar stories. El Mundo chose "The power of gas and oil." for their headline. Whilst the Dutch paper AD printed "With Russia and Qatar FIFA has chosen its guarantees in gold and oil,". The pick of the bunch, however, has to be The Seattle Times who printed "Qatar? Really?" as their headline.

To those who are currently thinking 'well, sour grapes aren't they?', yes and no. Yes, every paper quoted comes from a losing bidding nation and I'm sure they would all have loved to have the World Cup and their frustration at losing is understandable. But no because the manner in which the voting took place. Here's the breakdown.

"2018 VOTING

First round: England 2 votes (eliminated), Netherlands-Belgium 4; Spain-Portugal 7; Russia 9. (No absolute majority)

Second round: Netherlands-Belgium 2; Spain-Portugal 7; Russia 13. (Russia obtain absolute majority)"

"2022 VOTING

First round: Australia 1 (eliminated); Japan 3; United States 3; South Korea 4; Qatar 11. (No absolute majority)

Second round: Japan 2 (eliminated); South Korea 5; United States 5; Qatar 10. (No absolute majority)

Third round: South Korea 5 (eliminated); United States 6; Qatar 11. (No absolute majority)

Fourth round: United States 8; Qatar 14. (Qatar obtain absolute majority)"

A few points here are that;

1. Between the First and Second rounds of the 2018 bid, two voters change their minds and vote for Russia instead of voting for the Netherlands/Belgium bid.
2. Both Russia and Qatar are surprisingly close to an absolute majority (13 votes) from the first round.

Andy Anson, England's bid leader, has led the calls for reform. He said "Australia had a very good bid and got one vote, we had a very good bid and got two, the USA had an unbelievably strong technical bid and got three. Six votes in the first round between those three, there's something not quite right". His argument in this is sound, all three bids were praised by FIFA for their potential to host the world cup and were seen as the front runners for their respective bids, so to do so badly means foul play must be suspected. Anson's frustration is evident, "When you have the best technical bid, fantastic inspection visits, the best economic report, and, from what people told us, the best presentation, it's quite hard to stomach that all that seemed to count for absolutely nothing".

England's bid was called "excellent and remarkable" by FIFA chief Sepp Blatter yet Anson was informed that in the summary speech he gave before they all voted Mr Blatter reminded voters of the evils of British media. This, apart from being unprofessional, sounds like a personal attack on the English bid by FIFA. 


The voters themselves have come under fire too. A statement from a government official who was told that England's bid was "assured" 5 votes. The failure to follow through on such promises has severely damaged FIFA's credibility in the eyes of the English FA.


The media has been blamed by many for the loss of votes during the bidding process. The investigations by Panorama and the Sunday Times certainly ruffled a few feathers. Japan's committee member Junji Ogura revealed he believed the media had 'played a role' in England's bid. However Anson was quick to jump to their defense stating "They are saying to us that our media killed us but I don't believe that for one minute, but that's what we are being told". The media should not have influenced any aspect of the voting and their attempts to root out corruption in FIFA is something to be admired rather than criticised. The mere fact that FIFA was quick to criticise shows how they are a tight-knit elitist group who only seek to serve their own aims.


Premiership managers have also been quick to throw in their opinions. The general consensus is anger at FIFA for not awarding the right to host World Cup to England. Redknapp said the decision was "beyond belief" and Bruce suggested England "are not well liked" by FIFA. Allardyce, however, suggested that holding the World Cup in Eastern Europe for the first time may have been the reason. The fact that managers from other nations such as Wenger, Houllier and Moyes were also angered by the decision highlights what many see as a gross injustice in the game.  


Marc Wilmots, a Belgian footballer and part of the Netherlands/Belgium bid, said "Russia is a political choice and Qatar is an economic choice," and that he felt "sport has been the loser with the decision for these two World Cups.". The anti FIFA


Potentially more frustrating than the betrayal of trust from FIFA and the corruption within, has to be the fact that technically inferior and 'risky' bids won over this English, Australian and American bids.

Russia was heavily criticised for its poor infrastructure and lack of government backing whilst Qatar's bid was branded high risk by investigators and issues were raised about the scorching temperatures in summer (expected to pass 50 degrees). This was further compounded by allegations of trying to organise votes with the Spain/Portugal bid.


Yes, Blatter's 'noble' intentions of bringing football to places it barely touches but this move just reeks of oil money and corruption. This policy of developing football in other nations is not going entirely to plan as Poland and Ukraine rush to be ready for the Euros in 2012 and have been warned numerous times to hurry along their huge plans for staging the tournament. Outside the footballing world, picking places in order to develop them can backfire massively with the Commonwealth Games in Delhi a prime example.


I don't want to discredit what a massive success that both Russia and Qatar have won the rights but the whole situation has the aura of something being wrong. Yes, England is not FIFA's favourite nation and yes Blatter wanted to develop football but does that justly explain the results of the voting? I think not. After all the corruption investigations I don't feel it is unfair to think foul play has occurred.

Tuition Fees

Time for me to be controversial again. In light of the protests over the tuition fees increase there's no better time to debate what the fees actually mean. Based on the plans for tuition fees alone, I see no problem with the plans for increasing tuition fees. My problem with it is the reduction in funding for Higher Education alongside it.

What the Conservatives are proposing is increasing the tuition fee cap from around £3,000 to £6,000 but crucially, they have put in a system which makes it considerably easier on those who come out of university with poorly paid jobs or even reasonably paid jobs. The minimum wage to start repaying money owed to the government has shifted up to £21,000 which is £6,000 a year more than under the current system and there is no interest on the loans when earning underneath the minimum. Those universities who do decide to charge over the £6,000 cap are expected to contribute to a £150m scholarship for poor students. This seems to me like the balancing of an overly sympathetic system.

I fail to see why high earning families should not seek to support their children through higher education the same way they support them in primary and secondary. Parents in the United States save all their lives to put their children through university. I'm not saying that should happen but there should be the same concept of support at least instead of the 'throw them in the deep end' policy currently upheld by many.

It is important that I stress this is not a blog attacking the attitudes of parents or the upper classes in Britain. But simply a defence of a heavily criticised policy that I feel few understand fully. My real issue is why the government insists on reducing university budgets by a staggering 40% when so many are having to turn to them to further their education in the hope of getting a job.

Another problem is the distinct lack of clarity on this issue. Yes the rise in tuition fees means it will cost more but I do not believe that either Clegg or Cameron has adequately explained what the changes to the system actually mean. However I will defend them regardless as I sincerely doubt that the Labour party has any real suggestions on what to do, judging by Harriet Harman's shameless resort to university freshers week comparisons.

The combination of the cuts and the rise in fees will only be detrimental to higher education in the UK. The government, now more than ever should maintain heavy financial support to universities. They should seek to balance out the system where necessary to create a fairer process and allow those less fortunate the opportunities that the fortunate receive. The UK faces severe economic difficulties and it is the fortunate who will have to suffer a lack of financial support. Something they can cope perfectly well without. The current government needs to be clear about its intentions if it is to survive the next election.

Britain and Democracy

Off the back of politics lectures and tutorials, I thought I'd air my apparently rather controversial views on the democratic system currently used in the United Kingdom. This comes amid reports that the UK is under increasing pressure to allow prisoners the vote.

Britain has a long standing relationship with democracy and sees itself as the first bastion of democracy. Being the first major nation to develop something close to the modern sense of democracy. A view that in some ways can be see as hypocritical, with the retention of the monarchy whereas other nations have ousted theirs. Some claim the monarchy only currently survives for its tourism which although a good form of revenue gives a poor image of the UK if that is the case.

For elections in the UK, the country is divided into constituencies and the population vote for a MP to represent them in the House of Commons. What happened in the last election showed the devolution of British politics and the population's distinct lack of interest in local politics. The idea that a party that currently forms part of the coalition has been voted in because of their leader and the fact they were seen by many as the only option is something that shows UK politics has become a sorry state of affairs. The media combined with public disillusionment with local politics after the expenses scandal turned the last election into a straight up vote between Cameron, Clegg and Brown instead of the focus on the MP's the public would actually be voting for. Britain's political structure is effectively wasted if the focus continues to be on the leader of the nation and not the focus on all those combined who represent us.

Recent news reports also claim that now the UK, under increasing pressure from its European counterparts, is to give the vote to prisoners. Here I think I am in agreement with many British politicians, as part of the criminal punishment certain rights are rescinded and the right to vote should not be an exception to that. Those who flout the laws of the state deserve no say in the way the state should be run.

This in turn led me to question whether every Average Joe deserves the right to vote and I have to say honestly that I don't think so. Yes, everyone pays taxes and so the right to vote should follow but I feel taxes should only give you the right to live in the state and be protected by it. The reasoning behind this is that those who are not politically active or aware are voting purely on who they've voted for for the last 20 years or because 'that bloke on the telly sounded nice'. Surely people who are thinking in such a manner show no knowledge whatsoever of what they are voting for and the implications that potentially has on the United Kingdom. Although this is a rather elitist view I fear elitism is necessary to improve the popularity and the workings of politics. Hopefully 'intelligent voting' will produce better governments under more pressure to think of how to best serve the nation. Unfortunately carrying out a system of such nature would complex. How do you define political activity and awareness? In its boiled down form Who really deserves the vote?

Faith in British politics has dropped significantly and from the outside looking in something seems fundamentally wrong with the system currently used. At the risk of sounding like Obama, Cameron or the like, there needs to be a top-to-bottom change in British politics. The sooner the better.

Press, Prams and Prozzies

As the consequences of the tabloid revelations about Wayne Rooney's private life spiral onwards as he now seems intent on his current club Manchester United, I, like many see only one person to blame.Wayne Rooney.

Frankly, I have no sympathy for the lad. He spent years letting the tabloids into his life, photos of his wedding to Colleen being just one example. I think the clich(e) for this has to be good things rarely last. A good relationship with the notoriously cutthroat British press was never going to have much life to it and there was bound to be a fair few reporters digging for any dirt on the striker that they could find. I for one find it unsuprising that Rooney has slipped up in such a manner, he's not the first just think of all the recent captain's of England, none are squeaky clean.

Let that not be an excuse for him though. He let his wealth and fame get to him and whilst his wife was pregnant he began playing away from home. And not just for Manchester United. Something as horrible as this deserves little sympathy. 

His form for United dipped as we all expected, that on top of the injury he suffered meant it was always going to be a battle to get back to the heady days when he could score for fun. However, his reaction to be dropped by Ferguson was not something to be expected. Few within the squad question the Scot's decisions publically and last much longer in the team. The manager has to pick the best possible team for each game in order to win and an unfit, out of form Rooney was unlikely to make the squad let alone the bench. The most shocking thing about his behaviour thus far, worse than the scandal itself in my eyes, was to come out and say he wasn't even injured and so his manager was wrong to use that as a reason to drop him. Nothing screams selfish, desperate and childish quite like turning to the press and making a comment like that after being dropped. Throwing the toys out of the pram Wayne?

Now he's come out to say he wants to leave United because the team isn't heading in the right direction. He has a point. The team is hugely in debt with an ageing and at times lacklustre squad they look unlike to reclaim the Premiership anytime soon. But now more than ever they need their talisman, now more than ever Ferguson relies on the loyalty of the squad to him and now, at such a dangerous time for the club, their talisman is asking to leave? I daresay he'll follow the route of Messers Beckham and Ronaldo and be shown the door. Talisman or not he's now a player with priorities greater than the team he plays for.

Granted it can be argued that he was given too much too young and being the centre of United's squad for a number years has inflated his ego to such an extent its risen higher than the great club whose shirt he pulls on every Saturday. This unfortunately is becoming a common theme as young talent gets spoiled by money and corruption as they succeed.Thats life sometimes though and people need to learn how to cope with money and the succeess they get. The blame shouldn't lie with Sir Alex though his decision to pay the fee he did and play him is one few would turn down and his contribution to what can only be described as a waning squad has proven invaluable.

Rooney's behaviour and ultimately his decision to leave the club feels like the reaction of a child not getting his way. Despite what he has said about United his move is immature and disloyal like a rat jumping off a sinking ship. This kind of attitude is something that not only a team like Manchester United seek to avoid but England should seek to avoid too. Like many United fans I will be happy to see him leave the club.

Introduction

Hey everyone. I thought i'd try my hand at this blogging malarkey again just because it gives me a chance to air my many opinions on the news etc. I'll not bother to blog at a set time or date, it's just whenever there's a half decent story I feel the need to discuss. I assume everyone reading this knows me but just incase you've forgotten or stumbled on to this webpage accidentally (god only knows how), I'm a first year history student at the University of Aberdeen, I'm an atheist, hopefully a little politically aware, very into the sporting world not that I take part in many and just a little opinionated. A rather odd selection of things to say I guess but it was to give away the general topics I'll try to talk about. Obviously I have a few blogs to vent about different things at the moment so they should be up pretty soon.

Feel free to say whatever you think, I won't be offended....much. And if I offend you in any way then...tough don't read it etc. Thanks for reading and I hope you enjoy it.

Gordi