England’s tawdry world cup bid


by Rumbold
30th November, 2010 at 8:01 pm    

England’s bid to host the 2018 football world cup suffered a set back yesterday after a BBC Panorama investigation into corruption accused a number of senior FIFA figures of receiving bribes from ISL years ago when the company was bidding for broadcast rights. This may or may not be a good thing from an economic point of view: the costs of hosting are unclear as there will be the costs of upgrading stadia (especially as FIFA dislike English stadiums as they are nestled into towns so cannot provide the space for sponsors’ boards); FIFA also take a large share of the profits, and pay little tax on them. Other economic factors (such as transport) play a part too.

Leaving aside economics though, what was disappointing was the reaction of senior England figures to the Panorama programme. David Cameron, amongst others, rushed to mollify the FIFA executives accused of corruption (several of whom have been convicted of past offences), as if the BBC were the ones in the wrong. How embarrassing, and what a message to send out to those who look to the world cup to promote ‘legacies’.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Sports






19 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. sunny hundal

    Blogged: : England's tawdry world cup bid http://bit.ly/eFVEz6


  2. Lee Hyde

    RT @sunny_hundal: Blogged: : England's tawdry world cup bid http://bit.ly/eFVEz6


  3. Mark Jones

    RT @sunny_hundal: England's tawdry world cup bid http://bit.ly/eFVEz6


  4. Simon

    Pickled Politics » England's tawdry world cup bid http://bit.ly/hGwy6T


  5. Marcel Duda

    Pickled <b>Politics</b> » England's tawdry world cup bid http://goo.gl/fb/5L3i1


  6. Hopp2Soccer

    Pickled Politics » England's tawdry world cup bid: England's bid to host the 2018 football world cup s… http://bit.ly/gsyvJf #WorldCup


  7. Md. Suja Uddin Mia

    Pickled Politics » England's tawdry world cup bid: England's bid to host the 2018 football world cup suffered a … http://bit.ly/fkp1Ne


  8. worldcupgroup

    Pickled Politics » England's tawdry world cup bid: England's bid to host the 2018 football world cup suffered a … http://bit.ly/fq8G8L


  9. Todays' Politic

    Pickled Politics » England's tawdry world cup bid http://bit.ly/gonJqv


  10. TWT POLITICAL

    Pickled Politics » England's tawdry world cup bid: Rita Banerji on How Gandhian Are Obama's Politics? damon on O… http://bit.ly/grlJBM




  1. Papa Foxtrot Tango — on 30th November, 2010 at 10:46 pm  

    “… especially as FIFA dislike English stadiums as they are nestled into towns so cannot provide the space for sponsors’ boards.”

    Can’t say I’ve noticed any shortage of sponsors’ boards at Premier League grounds, even those whose teams participate in UEFA competitions.

  2. Brownie — on 30th November, 2010 at 11:31 pm  

    I’m somewhat conflicted on this. I share the core sentiment that the BBC and press in general should be free to go about their business and this ought not to affect England’s chances of hosting. On the other hand, there really wasn’t *that* much new info in the Panorama program. It was mostly a rehash of info alreay in the public domain. The only material differences were the sizes of the bribes the executives in question are alleged to have taken.

    It’s not that the BBC shouldn’t have shown the program, but the timing seems to be deliberately (unnecessarily?) provocative.

    If I were a member of the bid team, I’d be asking whether that program really had to air 72 hours before decision day. BBC editor Clive Edwards claimed it would have been wrong to wait until after the vote if they have evidence the process is flawed. Well here’s an idea: what about presenting the info months ago so the whole process could have been amended? I think we can all guess why that didn’t happen.

    Of ocurse, there’s a chance this will assist rather than sabotage England’s bid. There may be some executives persuaded to back England for fear of being seen as vengeful by voting against them. We shall see.

    I’ve often thought the home countries should tell FIFA to poke international football up its arse and we’ll just content ourselves with our domestic product. You know, the kind people all over the world want to watch?

  3. douglas clark — on 1st December, 2010 at 3:06 am  

    rushed to mollify the FIFA executives accused of corruption (several of whom have been convicted of past offences), as if the BBC were the ones in the wrong. How embarrassing, and what a message to send out to those who look to the world cup to promote ‘legacies’.

    Spoilt little brats, the lot of them. Let the fans decide where the competition ought to be played and to hell with football bureaucrats!

  4. Rumbold — on 1st December, 2010 at 9:24 am  

    Papa Foxtrot Tango:

    The stadiums are still seen as not expansive enough though- FIFA want masses of advertisements leading up to the stadiums, and this is difficult to do in most premiership stadiums.

    Brownie:

    Some of the accusations were new, and I think it was the right time to show as, as it coincided witht he vote. It is not the BBC’s job to support England’s bid.

    Of course, there’s a chance this will assist rather than sabotage England’s bid. There may be some executives persuaded to back England for fear of being seen as vengeful by voting against them. We shall see.

    That implies they have an once of shame. They don’t.

    I’ve often thought the home countries should tell FIFA to poke international football up its arse and we’ll just content ourselves with our domestic product. You know, the kind people all over the world want to watch?

    It would be interesting to see what would happen if UEFA as a whole asserted itself- but that won’t happen, especially with Platini in charge.

  5. MaidMarian — on 1st December, 2010 at 9:45 am  

    Rumbold – I think that this is wider than FIFA and the WC bid though. I would also add that the BBC was unnecessarily provocative here. Not that they were wrong to air the programme, just what they did was unnecessary.

    Organisations like FIFA, the IOC, any number of others all have their fair share of bad apples from around the world. It is, by the way, intersting to note that the BBC – the ‘Olympic Boradcaster’ – seems not to have had any interest in the IOC’s dirty linen.

    There is nothing wrong with competitions having an economic aspect to them, nor is there anything wrong with FIFA – a private for-profit enterprise seeking to maximise revenue.

    What is wrong is the sense that the ethics involved has been lost. The sense of ‘representing’ what is best about your area and the sense of doing it not for self but for the airy notion of the game. There is nothing wrong with money itself.

    None of this is a modern thing of course and it absolutely is not restricted to football.

    Douglas – As a Wigan supporter, I am always told that league positions should be determined by attendances. Just because Wigan have small crowds is it wrong to have aspiration?

  6. Rumbold — on 1st December, 2010 at 9:52 am  

    MaidMarian:

    I would like them to go after the IOC too.

    I have no problem with trying to make a profit on the world cup: we should, as otherwise taxpayers will have to subsidise it. Profits also allow FIFA to fund football in poorer countries, which is perhaps the best thing Sepp Blatter has done (even though he did it to secure votes).

  7. MaidMarian — on 1st December, 2010 at 10:14 am  

    Rumbold – Yes, the relationship between sport (all sport, not just football) which is after all private enterprise and advertising is not an easy one.

    It is the corruption, not the advertising that is the problem.

  8. Brownie — on 1st December, 2010 at 10:20 am  

    Some of the accusations were new, and I think it was the right time to show as, as it coincided witht he vote. It is not the BBC’s job to support England’s bid.

    Nor is its role to scupper it. I think we all know why this week was chosen. Ratings. If the motivation was concern for the bid process and reservations about the probity of the executive members, a program aired so late nothing could be done to change owt makes little sense.

    No problem at all with the program being made and aired, but the points could all have been made at a time that didn’t undermine our bid most. What’s so difficult?

  9. Mezba — on 2nd December, 2010 at 3:12 pm  

    Take it from a fan of cricket, corruption in sports is never a good thing for the long term health of the sport. It seems the English are more concerned with the world cup bid than the ethics.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.