stakeholderxiv.files.wordpress.com€¦ · web viewfifa has recently received worldwide pressure...
TRANSCRIPT
1
The Unethical Church that Governs a Beautiful Religion
Attention: FIFA, Domestic Footballing Associations, National Governments, Corporate Sponsors
RE: The need for FIFA’s Hierarchical Reform
Written by: Chris Thorsheim
2
Table of Contents
Executive
Summary……………………………………………………………………………....................................3
FIFA’s Mission…………………………………………………………………………………………….4
Current Crises………………………………………………………………………………………………4
Brazil……………………………………………………………………………………………….4
Qatar……………………………………………………………………………………………….5
Organizational Structure…………………………………………………………………………………....5
Executive Committee……………………………………………………………………................5
FIFA Congress…………………………………………………………………………..................7
Ethics Committee…………………………………………………………………………………..7
Independent Governance Committee……………………………………………………………....8
How it Happened: Two Presidents who Changed FIFA Forever…………………………………………..9
Joao Havelange……………………………………………………………………………………9
Sepp Blatter………………………………………………………………………………………10
Cash Cow……………………………………………………………………………………………….....11
Political Presence……………………………………………………………………………………….....12
FIFA v. Greece…………………………………………………………………………………....12
FIFA v. Poland………………………………………………………………………………..…..13
Reform………………………………………………………………………………………………….....14
External Pressure………………………………………………………………………………………….16
Political Pressure…………………………………………………………………………………16
Legal Pressure…………………………………………………………………………………....18
Sponsorship Pressure……………………………………………………………………………..19
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………………...…19
3
Executive Summary:
The World Cup has continuously been the one of the greatest sporting spectacles to bless
nations across the world. I say “bless” because for most nations around the world soccer is more
than just a sport. In John Oliver’s YouTube spoof of the World Cup in Brazil, a Brazilian woman
discusses how soccer truly is a religion. This highly anticipated event, occurring only once every
four years, attempts to unify each nation under the religion of soccer. Unfortunately, over the
past decade the World Cup has become shrouded in controversy. Why would such an amazing
event with the goal of unifying nations become subject to alleged criticism? Simple, the World
Cup is run by a corrupt international civil society organization called the Federation
Internationale de Football Association (FIFA).
FIFA has recently received worldwide pressure from multiple constituencies such as
sponsors, national governments, and the general public for their controversial selections of the
host countries for the 2018 World Cup to be held in Russia and the 2022 World Cup to be held in
Qatar. Furthermore, FIFA’s inability to address the human rights issues occurring in Qatar have
contributed to the negative perception of their organization. This report will analyze how the
organization has become increasingly corrupt since its origins. It will highlight the current crises
occurring and how these crises have shaped FIFA’s development as an organization. Finally, the
paper will advise FIFA with possible solutions for reforming their corrupt hierarchical structure
and policies. A further goal is to allow these concepts to resonate with constituencies who able to
influence change.
4
FIFA’s Mission:
The Federacion Internationale de Football, established in 1904, has become the world’s
most dominant football regulating power. The organization acts as the governing body of
football dedicated to improving the rules of the game, hosting worldwide events to unite nations
across the world, and enforcing disciplinary action. (FIFA) However, they believe that their
responsibilities surpass merely the development of the game. Many of FIFA’s initiatives claim to
protect human right and foster international relationships. Specifically, they outline their mission
as a civil society organization asserting that they “have a duty to improve the lives of young
people and their surrounding communities, to reduce the negative impact of their activities, and
to make the most they can out of the positives”(FIFA). It is no question that FIFA’s clear
deontological goals have not been fulfilled over the past decade. The accessibility of information
and societies’ elevated commitment to improving human rights have encouraged people to start
investigating the corrupt nature of FIFA as a non-profit, civil society organization.
Current Crisis:
Brazil:
The previous criticism about the World Cup held in Brazil in 2014, along with the
controversial selection of the future World Cups to be held in Russia and Qatar, have put FIFA in
a negative global spotlight. The 2014 Brazil World Cup was accompanied by riots across
numerous cities in Brazil. Brazilian citizens were frustrated with the Brazilian government
allocating billions of dollars to the World Cup. FIFA addresses that Brazil spent the equivalent of
15 billion U.S dollars in preparation for the global event.(FIFA) Just a year before opening
kickoff, the Rio de Janiero’s mayor Eduardo Paes publicly asserted that, “The country should
5
have seized the opportunity to invest in public services-health care, education, transport…
(Wilkinson 108)” In response to the rioting and these human rights claims, FIFA president Sepp
Blatter responds, “I can understand people are not happy, but they should not use football to
make their demands heard”(Wilkinson 108). FIFA was the real president of Brazil during this
period. They neglected the social, economic, and political problems at hand, completely
neglecting their mission as a civil society organization.
Qatar:
The selection of the 2022 World Cup to be held in Qatar received backlash from multiple
constituencies such as sponsors, national governments, and news stations. Further speculation
seemed to indicate that the bidding process was rigged. Several members on the executive
committee of FIFA were accused of bribery and corruption. The leading perpetrator behind the
alleged bribery is Mohammed Bin Hammam who was running to be FIFA president (Malliris
2013). Right after he was accused of bribery, he left the organization claiming that he had not
bribed officials in securing Qatar as the host country. Hammam was not the only FIFA executive
surrounded by bribery accusations. There have been four other FIFA members accused of
bribery just over the past several years (Malliris 2013).
The alleged bribery surrounding the World Cup in Qatar is not the only reason why FIFA
is currently under negative spotlight. Workers in Qatar have been battling brutal working
conditions and receiving inadequate pay in their efforts to prepare for the World Cup in 2022.
Amnesty International, a non-profit organization committed to the protection of human rights,
has produced a report highlighting the horrors taking place in Qatar. From August 2012 to
August 2013, the population of Qatar has risen 10.5% (Amnesty International 2013). An influx
of migrant Nepalese and Indian workers have been a large factor behind this population increase.
6
The construction firms employed by FIFA exploit the migrant workers by promising higher
salaries than they plan on paying. Often, their low salaries are withheld for months at a time.
Why won’t migrant workers leave their employers? Their employers confiscate their passports
upon entering into a contract. Migrant workers are not able to leave the country without
obtaining their passport from their employers (Amnesty International 2013). Sepp Blatter has
been confronted about the exploitation of migrant workers, but they have not intervened.
Furthermore, workers are subject to overly-excessive work hours and insubstantial safety
standards. There have already been fifteen Nepalese migrant workers who have died working to
construct the stadiums for the World Cup (Malliris 2013). The International Trade Union
Confederation forecasts that there will be around four thousand deaths upon the completion of
FIFA’s project (Malliris 2013). This clearly means that there is something wrong with the safety
standards of their current construction practices. However, FIFA refuses to believe that there is
anything wrong with their current construction procedure. Finally, workers are provided
inadequate, unsustainable rooming arrangements (Amnesty International 2013). It is no secret
that Qatar’s summers are brutally hot. Temperatures reach almost 120 degrees Fahrenheit. The
World Cup workers do not receive air conditioning or fans in their housing accommodations.
Most of the time they have to sleep on the roof of their dwellings.
Organizational structure:
Executive Committee:
The corrupt nature of FIFA arises from their flawed organizational structure. Initially,
FIFA’s organizational structure included an executive committee, a congress, and multiple
subcommittees. FIFA’s executive committee currently consists of the FIFA president, eight vice-
presidents, and 15 members that meet to address numerous agendas whether it be presidential
7
reports or individual confederation reports.(FIFA) The members selected to be in the Executive
Committee are picked from the six international confederations: CONMEBOL, UEFA, AFC,
CAF, CONCACAF, and Oceania. (Wilkinson 29) The executive branch and the president do not
report to any external board of directors.
FIFA Congress:
FIFA Congress meets once or twice annually to stage world footballing events and vote
on the FIFA president. Congress consists of the 208 national member associations that are apart
of FIFA. These usually are the independent national footballing bodies for each nation. Each
association has the ability to vote on the president. The candidate who receives at least two-thirds
of the vote will be crowned the FIFA president. This selection process causes an evident
problem. Representatives from each national association can easily be bribed by presidential
candidates.
Ethics Committee:
The most recent addition to the FIFA hierarchy is FIFA’s independent ethics committee.
The FIFA ethics committee was created in 2004 to help critique FIFA’s questionable endeavors.
It is composed of both an investigative chamber and adjudicatory chamber who played vital roles
in creating FIFA’s code of ethics. The investigatory committee’s main role is to “investigate
potential breaches of provisions of this code on its own initiative and ex officio at its full and
independent discretion”(FIFA). The adjudicatory chamber will subsequently draft a report on the
breach of the code of ethics if they feel like the ethics code has been broken. Article three is the
most influential aspect of the ethical code. It states that officials must always act with integrity,
officials are not able to exploit their position for personal financial gain, and that they must abide
to ethical objectives and mission of FIFA. (FIFA) The ethics committee has been largely
8
uninfluential in their investigatory processes. Their major accomplishment has been banning
FIFA president nominee, Mohammed Bin Hammam from his continued membership in the FIFA
executive committee.
Independent Governance Committee:
The Ethics Committee is responsible for investigating and punishing corruption that takes
place within FIFA. They do not propose solutions for reform. In 2011, Sepp Blatter decided to
create an “independent” governance committee” to help oversee effective reform. The head of
the IGC is corruption expert and professor, Mark Pieth, from the University of Basel. The
committee is comprised of Transparency International members who specialize in combating
corporate corruption. The unique aspect of this committee is its’ independence from FIFA.
However, a Swiss newspaper revealed that chairmen head, Mark Pieth, had been paid $128,000
by FIFA to prepare a scoping document on reform, prior to his acceptance of the role. (Pielke)
Shortly after this revelation, six out of twelve Transparency International members revealed that
they too had been compensated by FIFA. (Pielke) These compensation packages were not
disclosed by FIFA. The IGC was supposed to be completely independent from FIFA. Mark
Pieth’s scoping paper contained an elaborate plan for FIFA hierarchical reform in 2011. Just a
year later while working with the IGC, he developed another paper which contained similar
reforms at a much less demanding level. He urged Sepp Blatter to “not pick cherries”(Pielke) in
adopting these reforms. Blatter snidely replied, “Even if Professor Pieth says we shall cherry-
pick, we cannot take the whole tree. It is impossible to take the tree and have all the cherries
down”(Pielke). What is the purpose of the IGC if Blatter handpicks the reforms he deems
necessary for the organization. There is clearly no current hierarchical entity capable of
overshadowing the FIFA president.
9
How it Happened: The Two Presidents who Changed FIFA Forever:
Joao Havelange:
The year 1974 proved to be the catalyst for FIFA’s corrupt nature. The President leading up to
the FIFA president selection in 1974 was Englishmen Sir William Rous. Rous was completely
oblivious the changing world around him. He was living in a post-colonialism period where
third-world countries wanted to be represented in the World Cup. The 1966 World Cup featured
only two teams from Africa and Asia. The underrepresentation of these nations stimulated unrest
political unrest. Future president and Brazilian native, Joao Havelange, recognized the
underrepresentation of the southern hemisphere and made an alliance with the Asian, African,
and South-American countries. Out of the 122 votes on FIFA’s election day in 1974, Havelange
won the presidency with a score of 68 to 52 votes. All 37 votes from African entities went to
Havelange. (Tomlinson 59)
Havelange did come through with his promises. He decentralized the power of European
nations that dominated the World Cup. (Tomlinson 63) He was responsible for the
internationalization of the game of soccer. However, with the internationalization of the game of
soccer, came the commercialization of the game of soccer. Havelange took over at the helm of
FIFA at a time where FIFA’s finances were quite negligible. By the end of his reign in 1998,
FIFA had almost four billion dollars in reserves. (Tomlinson) He completely changed the goals
of FIFA. Havelange was described as a “football magnate who combined the qualities of far-
sightedness and openness, an entrepreneur in body and soul” who managed FIFA as a
“proprietor”(Tomlinson 66) rather than a private organization. Havelange’s previous financial
background allowed him to capitalize on worldwide interest in the World Cup. To generate
startup funds, he persuaded Coca-Cola to sponsor FIFA. 1976 and 1978 proved to be the most
10
crucial years in FIFA’s history. In 1978, Coca-Cola paid FIFA $8,300,000 to have exclusive
marketing rights in the World Cup. Furthermore, Havelange allowed the European Broadcasting
Union and the International Radio and Television Organization to broadcast the 1976 FIFA
World Cup Finals for a combined fee of $25,000,000.(Tomlinson 89) Just eleven years later, he
proposed a lengthy partnership with the television industry. The rights to televise the World
Cups held in 1990, 1994, and 1998 were sold for $340,000,000. Havelange described FIFA’s
relationship with the television industry as mutual beneficiaries. FIFA was making money and
the television companies were getting millions of viewers across dozens of countries. Although
FIFA was supposed to be considered a non-profit, Havelange argued that these superfluous funds
would propel FIFA into the 21st century. He created a monopolistic enterprise rather than a non-
profit. Before his resignation as president in 1998, he made a deal for the television rights of the
2006 World Cup to be held in Germany. The Executive Committee of FIFA had no opinion in
this deal. David Will, vice-president of FIFA at the time, comments that the executive committee
needed “to be properly chosen, and not have committees packed with pay-offs”(Tomlinson 67).
The Executive Committee did not even see the final contract. It was signed by Havelange
independently. Havelange started FIFA’s era of seceding to market forces, proposing bribes, and
giving out power to people who sympathize with the profit-motive behind world football. He
hand-picked his trained successor, Sepp Blatter, to continue his legacy.
Sepp Blatter:
Current FIFA president, Sepp Blatter, followed the footsteps of Havelange. Sepp Blatter and
Havelange were constantly scheming during the campaign process. Blatter succeeded in winning
the next two campaigns in 1998 and 2002. The day after he won in 2002, the Kenyan Footballing
Federation thanked Havelange for paying for their traveling expenses for a regional tournament
11
in Rwanda, clearly buying their vote for Blatter. (Tomlinson 74) The UEFA president Johansson
and loser of the FIFA presidency in 2002 comments on this gesture exclaiming, “I would never
again go for the FIFA presidency. I will never engage myself in such dirty business”(Tomlinson
74). Blatter figured out how to keep people happy. He would approach the uninfluential
members within FIFA, who still maintained a vote, and would pay them significant bribes. After
his re-election in 2002, Blatter went on to modify FIFA committees. He gave those who
supported him positions of power and negated those who did not, putting them in lackluster
positions with little influence. He also suggested that each member on the Executive Committee
should be paid $50,000. The revenues received from sponsors and the television industry
continue to grow. In the 2010 World Cup, FIFA made around 3.5 billion dollars and profited 631
million dollars. (Tomlinson 45)
Cash Cow:
FIFA has developed a negative stereotype of becoming a cash cow since these two
presidents came to dominate FIFA. However, this stereotype can be considered a valid label. The
growth in viewership, attendance, and popularity in the World Cup allows FIFA to make money
without needing a further business strategy. Global companies are willing to pay large sums of
money to be one of the acclaimed FIFA sponsors. The sponsorship will allow the company to
globally advertise their products or services for the most viewed event in the world. FIFA has so
much leverage when it comes to bargaining with their global sponsors. FIFA’s major, current
sponsors include: Visa, Hyundai, Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, and Adidas. The recent allegations of
bribery have caused unrest among the sponsors. Coca-Cola has addressed that they have full
confidence in the Ethics Committee to resolve the scandals.(Sebastian) Most of these sponsors
have decided to speak publicly about FIFA because they want to maintain a positive global
12
image. They also want to have more leverage when discussing the final sponsorship fee they will
pay for the World Cup. Despite these sponsorship concerns, FIFA remains unimpressed. They
know that many global companies would love to be one of the major sponsors at the World Cup.
It provides sponsors with unparalleled worldwide publicity.
Political Presence:
FIFA v. Greece:
FIFA’s power transcends commercial governance. They have unlimited power in the political
realm as well. National governments have consistently yielded to the demands of FIFA. There
have been two major occurrences over the past three decades that have solidified FIFA’s
influential political presence. The first rivalry develops between FIFA and Greece. In the early
1990’s, the Greek government “aimed to update governance structures in the face of sport
commercialization and scandals related to match fixing”(Garcia and Meier). The proposed
legislation would have an immediate impact by randomizing referee selection, rather than
invoking a voting process. FIFA wasn’t fond of the government’s proposed reforms. They
threatened to kick out the Greece’s national football federation, the Hellenistic Football
Federation, from participating in worldwide footballing events. The Greek government
immediately dropped the proposed legislation. In 2004, the need for stricter sporting governance
in Greece once again highlighted FIFA’s dominance. The Greek government wanted to make
changes to their National Sports Act. The government commanded national federations to
change their current statutes, including the election process, in less than six months’ time. The
president of the Hellenistic Football Federation, Vasilios Gagatsis, was nervous that he was not
going to be re-elected. (Garcia and Meier) The HFF did not abide by these new election terms to
which the government refused to provide state funding for the HFF. Gagatsis contacted FIFA in
13
an effort to regain dominance. FIFA attacked the Greek government demanding that they throw
out the new legislation. The Greek government’s refusal to remove current legislation resulted in
the suspension of the HFF from FIFA’s member association. Thus, the Greek government faced
a multitude of political pressure from FIFA. Only eight days after the suspension, the Greek
government decided to rescind the legislation and comply with FIFA’s demands. (Garcia and
Meier)
FIFA v. Poland
FIFA vs. Poland is another case that highlights FIFA’s political dominance. The national
association of Poland, the Poland Football Association, was receiving criticism from Poland’s
government. There was speculation that numerous Poland officials were receiving bribes and
engaging in match-fixing. (Garcia and Meier) The Minister of Sport has the ability to suspend
corrupt sporting organizations. The Minister can also negate public funding for the organization
if he feels like they aren’t complying with ethical practices. In 2007, the government demanded
that the PFA address the bribery accusations occurring within their organization. When they
didn’t take the government seriously, they were suspended for not complying with legal
practices. FIFA came to the PFA’s rescue. They promised to expel Poland from the 2010 World
Cup and cancel their upcoming qualifying matches. They further demanded that the minster of
sport be removed from supervising the PFA by writing a letter to the Polish Prime Minister.
Polish Prime Minister responded to FIFA’s imperatives by confronting the PFA. He argued that
“You cannot supervise the fight against corruption and hooliganism if you break the law
yourself”(Garcia and Meier). The PFA refused to admit these claims. The Polish government
seceded to the demands of FIFA, just like Greece had done previously. They feared being
suspended from the World Cup. It is clear that even national governments have no power over
14
their own national footballing organizations. If national governments have no power to address
the corruption in their own footballing associations, they definitely have no jurisdiction to
challenge FIFA for their corrupt practices. FIFA has an unhindered power in defending its
autonomy as an organization. They have the ability to compete with and challenge political
figures. FIFA is the private conqueror unchallenged by any political authorities.
Reform:
It can be seen throughout the past regime of Havelange and the current regime of Blatter
that the FIFA presidents have unlimited jurisdiction over the Executive Committee. FIFA made a
step in the right direction with the creation of the IGC. However, the IGC has not been an
effective stimulus in providing hierarchical reform. Therefore, FIFA should have an independent
board of directors that have the ability to veto decisions that the President and Executive
Committee decide on. This Board of Directors can be similar to that of a Board of Directors that
governs a financial company. Although FIFA is a private non-profit organization, many of their
goals coincide with financial entities. To put into context what this Board of Directors would do,
it is important to outline the functions of a Board of Directors. The Board of Directors is
responsible for making decisions in regards to the shareholders, determining the compensation
packages of executives, and monitoring where money is being spent. As mentioned previously,
FIFA outlines in their mission statement that they have a passionate dedication to protecting
human rights. Their actions have continuously impacted various constituencies. Therefore, the
Board of Directors would make the final decision as to whether FIFA’s decision will threaten the
rights of those impacted. For example, the Board of Directors would have had an immediate
influence in on the selection of the World Cup in Qatar. The current system of selecting the host
country for the World Cup is flawed. National associations engage in a bidding process to
15
determine who will succeed in hosting the World Cup. These member associations prepare the
necessary bidding documents by following FIFA’s bidding manual. The members of the
Executive Committee vote on who should be the host country based on the scoping documents
prepared by each country. If there is a tie at the end of the bidding process, the FIFA president
has the final word on who hosts the World Cup. This process is extremely susceptible to bribery
and corruption. It is highlighted in the selection of the two upcoming World Cups.
The selection of the 2018 and 2022 World Cups have generated extreme controversy
because of the bidding process. It is hard to believe that Qatar’s selection surpassed the likes of
the United States and European powers. The temperatures reaching 122 degrees Fahrenheit are
not even conducive to playing the game of soccer! The pièce de résistance was Michael Garcia’s
resignation from the FIFA ethics committee in 2014. Upon until the announcement of the
selection of these two host countries, the FIFA ethics committee was tasked with the project of
determining whether the selection process was legitimate. Michael Garcia, an American lawyer
in the investigatory chamber, was outraged with the adjudicatory chamber’s decision to proceed
with holding the World Cup in these two countries. (ESPN) He believed the head of the
adjudicatory chamber, Joachim Eckert, made a terrible decision after reading his 430 page
investigation. Garcia went to the FIFA’s subcommittee of appeals and was rejected. He resigned
after receiving this denial. He argued that no “independent governance committee can change the
culture of an organization”(ESPN). He also expressed his loss of faith in the “independence” of
the FIFA ethics committee. Therefore, it is essential to have an unbiased board of directors that
makes the final judgment on decisions like the selection of the host country for the World Cup.
They can make sure the selection lives up to FIFA’s mission and that the selection is void of
bribery.
16
The Board of Directors would be responsible for managing the compensation of the
president of FIFA, the executive committee, and the numerous subcommittees. It will also be
imperative for them to disclose the salary figures of each of these entities. Mark Pieth of the IGC
has also suggested for FIFA to reveal the compensation associated with each entity. (Davis and
Capello) Pielke estimates that Blatter makes between $5 million and $8 million a year which is
absurdly high for running a non-profit. (Pielke) It is imperative that the Board of Directors
manages the finances of FIFA, so that they are able to know where the money is being allocated.
The FIFA president is selected every 4 years, similar to that of the United States. A FIFA
president can serve for an unrestricted period of time. Havelange served for 24 years and Blatter
has served for almost 17 years. FIFA presidents should only have the potential to serve for a
maximum of eight years. They should only be able to be re-elected once. This will provide FIFA
with new outlook, suggestions, and a higher potential for reform. This is why our government is
organized the way it is. A new leader results a different approach to addressing and solving
problems. FIFA would be organized more like a democracy and less like a dictatorship, which is
what it resembles right now.
External Pressure:
Political Pressure:
The current member associations within FIFA are subject to FIFA’s procedural statutes.
Therefore, national governments have little power in implementing changes in their own member
associations. This was seen in the cases of Poland and Greece. Their respective national
governments were unable to provide stricter standards for the Poland Football Association and
Hellenistic Football Federation. The FIFA statutes are extremely difficult to change. To change
17
or overrule a statute, there needs at least three quarters of the vote from all member associations.
The Executive Committee also retains the power to reverse the decision if it was of extreme
importance. (Pielke) How does FIFA have so much leverage in making these decisions? Simple,
“FIFA statutes create a disincentive for national governments to exercise any supervision of
FIFA, as they allow the organization to suspend national football associations for government
interference”(Pielke). When the national governments are interfering, FIFA threatens to suspend
or remove the member association from FIFA. This means the nation would not be able to
compete in the World Cup which could cause unrest from national citizens. FIFA has the power
to act as a universal government, with final jurisdiction over what nations can play in the World
Cup. Therefore, national governments need more power in sanctioning FIFA. There are two
possible solutions to this problem. First, member associations can form a union against FIFA.
The difficulty in this option would be convincing those member associations who do engage in
bribery in their domestic leagues. These national footballing bodies would be reluctant to join or
defend the union in fear of reformation.
The more viable option would be for national governments to become more effective in
making sure FIFA is abiding by their mission statement. In 2014, the United States House of
Representatives expressed their concerns with the labor practices taking place in Qatar in
preparation for the 2022 FIFA World Cup. After outlining the horrors earlier in the paper, it is
obvious that national governments should be putting pressure on FIFA to resolve the human
rights violations taking place in Qatar. The United States government has made strides by
addressing their concerns. The most significant of these concerns lies with the migrant worker
deaths and the kalafa system that dominates infrastructure production for the World Cup. The
House of Representatives calls on United States employers to adhere to proper working
18
condition standards, calls on the Qatari government to propose new legislation to be more
accountable for human rights issues, and calls on FIFA themselves to challenge Qatar to ban the
modern day slavery that is happening in preparation for the global event that is supposed to unify
nations across the world. There needs to be more pressure applied to FIFA by national
governments because of FIFA’s inability to abide by their mission statement.
Legal Pressure:
In 2002, Sepp Blatter was challenged by eleven out of 24 executive members in Swiss Courts for
allocating FIFA funds illegally to other confederations and a former referee. However, Sepp
Blatter was not convicted of any fraud. The Swiss Courts believed there was a lack of evidence
to prove that Blatter was guilty. There have been numerous murmurings among the ethics
committee to investigate Blatter again, but to this date there has been no real progress. Garcia
was the one who publicly expressed that the ethics committee was going to challenge him in
December of 2014, but it never happened. (ESPN) Blatter has definitely committed his fair share
of crimes while in FIFA, nobody can doubt that. However, he always is able to squeak by
unaffected by legal procedures. A possible way to address the corruption in FIFA is to sue the
organization as a whole. A professor at Oxford, Stephen Weatherill, comments, “It is
intimidatingly difficult to challenge powerful sports bodies, individuals have…and so has the
[European] Commission, and it is not at all the case that sports structures which have endured a
great many years can confidently predict a long life in the future"(Pielke). It can be possible to
tackle FIFA as an organization, but it needs to come from another powerful organization or
government capable of a lengthy, expensive court procedure.
Sponsorship pressure:
19
Sponsors should commit to exerting more pressure on FIFA. Adidas has been a sponsor
since the start of Havelange’s presidency. They were the ones who help started the
commercialization of football. It is unlikely for them to revoke their sponsorship, especially with
the likes of Nike craving a more influential World Cup presence. However, two major sponsors
of previous World Cups, Sony and Emirates, have recently decided to drop their sponsorship
with FIFA because of the lack of transparency involved in the bribery investigation for the
selection of the 2018 and 2022 World Cups. (Futterman) Sponsors should be able to have a lot
more leverage in their contracts. If FIFA is not abiding by their own mission as an organization,
these sponsors should have the ability to revoke funding until issues have been resolved.
Conclusion:
Football is a religion to me just like most of the world. How long is it going to take for
our Church to become ethical? How many more controversial World Cups will occur before real
change occurs? How much longer will Sepp Blatter run his dictatorship? Suggested reforms have
been proposed by numerous constituencies. It is time to for FIFA to finally put them into action.
If they won’t, external governments and organizations need to challenge FIFA publicly to help
institute change.
20
Works Cited
Balser, Brittney. (2013). “The Structure and Policies of FIFA”. Retrieved 3/30, 2015 from
aaaahttp://sites.duke.edu/wcwp . Davis, Noah, and Capello Juan. "Noah Davis and Juan C. Cappello Debate: Does FIFA's aaaaaCorruption Hurt the Beautiful Game?" Columbia University Press, 1 Apr. 2014. Web. 1 aaaaaMay 2015.
ESPN STAFF. “World Cup Bid Investigator Michael Garcia Quits FIFA Ethics Committee.” aaaaaESPNFC.com. ESPN, 14 Dec. 2014. Web. 06 May. 2015.
"FIFA.com - The Official Website of the FIFA World Cup™." FIFA.com - Fédération aaaaaInternationale De Football Association (FIFA). Web. 5 May 2015.
Frawley, Stephen, and Daryl Adair. Managing the Football World Cup. Palgrave Macmillan, aaaaa2014. Print.
Futterman, Matthew, and Joshua Robinson. "Visa and McDonald's among several Sponsors aaaaaConcerned Over World Cup Probe; Following Sony's Decision to Drop FIFA Sponsorship, aaaaaVisa Says it is 'Troubled' by Recent Controversy." Wall Street Journal (Online)Nov 27 aaaaa2014. ProQuest. Web. 7 May 2015 .
Garcia, Borja, and Henk-Erik Meier. "The Power of FIFA Over National Governments: A New aaaaaActor in World Politics." Loughborough University Institutional Repository. FLACSO and aaaaaISA, Dec. 2014. Web. 1 May 2015.
Malliris, Christina. (2013) “The Dark Side of FIFA: Selected controversies and the future of aaaaaaccountability in the organization”. Retrieved 3/30, 2015 from http://sites.duke.edu/wcwp.
Pielke, Roger. "‘FIFA Paid $88.6m in Salaries in 2014. We Can Guesstimate Blatter’s Take at aaaaa$6m+.”University of Colorado, 20 Mar. 2015. Web. 07 May 2015.
Pielke, Roger. “How can FIFA be Held Accountable?” University of Colorado, 19. Dec. 2012. aaaaaWeb. 30 Mar. 2015.
Sebastian, Joseph. "FIFA Sponsors Break Silence Over Qatar World Cup Row." Marketing Week aaaaa(Online) Jun 09 2014ProQuest.Web. 7 May 2015 .
“The Dark Side of Migration: Spotlight on Qatar’s Construction Sector Ahead of the World aaaaaCup.” Amnesty International Publications, 2013. Web. 30 Mar. 2015.
Tomlinson, Alan. FIFA (Fédération Internationale De Football Association): The Men, the aaaaaMyths and the Money. New York: Taylor and Francis, 2014. Print.
21