"We were equal top of FIFA's own technical assessment of the four bids. We were top of an independent assessment of the best commercial bids and our presentation on Thursday was widely acclaimed as the best of the 2018 and 2022 bids," said acting FA chairman Roger Burden. "I am struggling to understand how we only achieved two votes".
He shouldn't be. Viacheslav Koloskov, FIFA vice-president from 1980 to 1996 and a member of Russia's victorious organising committee, had already revealed how unimportant technical assessments are: "I know from my own experience that ExCo members work with little information. The inspection reports are enormous, so no one reads them." Ahongalu Fusimalohi, suspended from the vote after a Sunday Times sting, had given the FA an even bigger clue: "England don't strike deals...It is corrupt – but only if you get caught."
"All the fish is sold," Vladimir Putin had said, while the British press obessed about his failure to turn up in Zurich. England sent David Beckham, a prime minister and a future king, who spent 48 hours lobbying the 22 committee members - and got one extra vote other than their own (from Issa Hayatou, African federation chief, repaying England's support for his unsuccessful 2002 attempt to unseat Blatter).
Somehow, the English bid contrived to be arrogant, naive and incredibly stupid at the same time. A bit, you might say, like the men they chose to spearhead it.
4 comments:
One interesting bi-product of the whole fiasco has been to let us all know that FIFA is a breathtakingly self seeking and corrupt organization. Prior to this, I hadn't really thought about it. Now I know. Anyway, let's face it, the World Cup's been crap for decades: a state of affairs which may be connected with the necrotic state of the game's international governing body.
As for the English and Scottish FAs, don't get me started.
Google Jack Warner and the SFA together and you'll understand one possible attraction of the Russian and Qatari bids.
I also recommend Jack Warner + ticket tout and Jack Warner + 2006 bonuses.
When Warner told the media the England bid needed to be "more friendly" he wasn't talking about sending the team over to play a game. What on earth gave the FA the impression they could ever trust his word?
Indeed. Lots of factors and theories run rife here - Blatter wanted Russia and the panel therefore voted for Blatter; Russia were the only nation to acquiesce on demands to tax and workers' rights laws; Blatter wants a Nobel Peace Prize...
As you're implying, we knew the game but chose not to play it, or at least not as hard as Russia and the others. It's not new information to suggest FIFA are corrupt and perhaps we dabbled as far as we dared. But, handbags and a friendly in Thailand just wasn't going to cut it. To win this way, we needed to completely loosen up on morals, stifle our own press, and bend over. Whether we chose not to play their game or really believed that a strong technical bid would outrank such shenanigans, either way suggests stupidity. If we had entered the lion's den of bribery, imagine if our own free press found out...
Exactly. Which makes Anson's pre-decision attacks on the BBC as laughable as his subsequent criticism of the bidding process.
Post a Comment