In an opinion piece, the London GUARDIAN's Owen Gibson asked, "Where to begin with the latest FIFA omnishambles?" As usual, the presidential suite in FIFA’s "opulent" $100M HQ in Zurich "is a pretty good place to start." Everything in FIFA's "hall of mirrors comes back refracted with the broken image" of
FIFA President Sepp Blatter, "who has become so adept at surfing the wave of perpetual crisis that he considers it perfectly normal." So "it was with the
summary, from the ethics committee judge, Hans-Joachim Eckert, of the findings of Michael Garcia’s long-awaited investigation into the contentious and chaotic bidding processes for the 2018 and 2022 World Cups." Russia and Qatar "were effectively cleared -- with the former insisting their email evidence had been wiped and despite a long list of questions over the latter -- and Blatter hurried to close the book on the investigation." Those bidding countries that took Garcia at his word and turned over all their emails and evidence, such as England, "saw it used to castigate them for comparatively minor infractions of the rules." The whistleblowers who were supposed to be protected by
FIFA producing a 42-page summary, rather than publishing the 430-page investigation, "had their reputations trashed" (
GUARDIAN, 11/15).
THRESHOLD: In London, Henry Winter commented the report admits certain unethical "occurrences" by bidders but says that "the effect of these occurrences on the bidding process as a whole were far from reaching any threshold that would require returning to the bidding process, let alone re-opening it." Threshold? How "can there be a threshold on corruption?" There should be zero-tolerance on corruption, not some gray area where corruption is acceptable before the "threshold" is reached. The word '"threshold' damns" FIFA (TELEGRAPH, 11/14). Also in London, Martin Samuel wrote the "tragedy for football’s cynics is how often they are proved right." Skeptics "expected nothing from the investigation into FIFA corruption, and got precisely that; pessimists expected the report to make no difference to the travesty that is Qatar 2022, and it did not; misanthropists said those making the greatest noise about wrongdoing in the bidding process -- England and Australia -- were likely to fare worst, and that is how the news unfolded." Reading Eckert’s appraisal of Garcia’s report "felt like an echo of final scenes of Roman Polanski’s film Chinatown." The girl "is shot dead, the incestuous rapist monster gets away with it, and the private detective is left looking on, horrified and powerless." "Forget it, Jake," he is told. "It’s Chinatown" (DAILY MAIL, 11/13).
BAD DREAM: In Sydney, Declan Hill wrote more than A$45M ($39M) in taxpayers’ money "has been flushed down the toilet to try to convince a group of some of the most reprehensible men in sport that Australia should host the 2022 World Cup." There are schools, community centers, hospitals, environmental projects and charities "full of decent people who could have made better use of the money." Yet Australian sports officials "chased the dream of hosting the World Cup." In the chase, "they threw overboard just about every value that the nation holds dear." They "threw money into dubious projects, they helped finance unlikely schemes, they dealt with dodgy characters" (THE AUSTRALIAN, 11/17). BLOOMBERG's Kavitha A. Davidson wrote there is "lots to take issue with here, from Eckert's refusal to release Garcia's full report, to the lack of cooperation from several Qatari officials, to Russia's claim that destroying all records of the bidding process was standard operating procedure and not a cover-up." But the "biggest problem remains the complete lack of independent oversight of one of the largest governing bodies in sports, tasked with investigating itself while having little motivation for transparency or the truth" (BLOOMBERG, 11/14).
'LAUGHING STOCK': In London, Anthony Clavane wrote former FA Chair David Triesman "has launched a blistering attack on FIFA" and Blatter. Triesman: "FIFA
is a laughing stock. It is a rogue state. It has a history of appalling
behavior, a culture that wouldn’t be tolerated in any other world
organization. And yet it just ploughs on. Blatter should go. They all should go" (MIRROR, 11/15). In N.Y., Juliet Macur wrote the 42-page report basically said, shockingly, “Keep moving, folks. Nothing to see here.” Garcia "might be the most aggrieved party." He now "finds himself entangled in a labyrinth of politics and obfuscation for which FIFA is infamous." Garcia’s full report "is said to focus on the violations of FIFA executive committee members, according to a person briefed on the contents." But "will those members face ethics charges?" (N.Y. TIMES, 11/13). The ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER's Scott M. Reid wrote it "was one of those moments you know is coming yet nevertheless sends your head spinning with its arrogance and blatant disregard for decency, its utter contempt to any reasonable level of intelligence." It is beyond time "FIFA’s corporate partners in the U.S. and around the world stop bankrolling this rotten operation." Despite "chapter after chapter of unethical behavior by top FIFA
officials, the likes Coca-Cola, Visa, McDonald’s, Budweiser, Sony, and
Johnson & Johnson continue to line up to give their corporate seal
of approval to FIFA’s corrupt enterprise" (O.C. REGISTER, 11/14). ESPN's Rory Smith wrote we "can get back to thinking about the football, the beautiful game, the fame and the glory." That, of course, "is what FIFA wants." It "is a trick that few institutions, outside FIFA, would have the nerve to pull." Maybe "some of the planet's most flagrant autocracies, and perhaps a few banks, experts in the turning of a blind eye, allergic to accountability." The reason that FIFA tries it, time and again, though, "is that they know that they will get away with it." And "they will get away with it because they are appealing to a captive audience" (ESPN, 11/14).
