Tweet
FOR THE GAME OR FOR THE WORLD?
World Policy
June 11 2014
June 11, 2014 - 12:09pm | admin
By Adam Echelman
Over the past 30 years, FIFA has risen rapidly to become one of the
world's most influential institutions. With World Cup venues in new
locations like Brazil, Russia, and Qatar, it seems President Sepp
Blatter is taking on an aggressive agenda that goes beyond simply
organizing soccer tournaments. Indeed, FIFA has played such a prominent
role in international affairs that Blatter fancies himself a viable
candidate for the 2014 Nobel Peace Prize.
Critics of FIFA, however, claim that corruption charges and
commercial incentives undermine the association's political and
social achievements. In many ways, those critics are right. The
problem lies not in FIFA's leadership but more broadly in its sudden
and rapid expansion. By increasing its philanthropic and diplomatic
influence, FIFA has lost track of its true purpose and exposed itself
to corruption. FIFA must prioritize soccer over political opportunism
if it wants to succeed in the future.
To understand FIFA's power, you must first understand the game. Soccer
is ubiquitous, from Syrian refugee camps to the Chinese Super League,
from street-ball to stadiums. It is the world's most popular sport
with an estimated 270 million players and referees--making the World
Cup the largest and most popular single-event sporting competition.
With over 3.2 billion viewers (46 percent of the world's population)
from 204 broadcasting countries, the World Cup has become a stage for
international diplomacy. Argentina exacted revenge for the Falklands
War by defeating the UK in a qualifying match; Iran and the U.S. came
together in an unprecedented show of peace over a 1998 World Cup game;
tensions over the Armenian genocide exploded as Turkey faced Armenia
on the field. In 2002, FIFA asked Japan and South Korea to co-host
the World Cup. Despite their tumultuous history and weak diplomatic
ties, both countries agreed to FIFA's request, inaugurating a period
of unparalleled peace and exchange between the two nations--all in
the name of soccer.
The extension of the World Cup into South Africa, Brazil, Russia,
and Qatar highlights FIFA's political growth, but it also hints at the
organization's philanthropic mission. When choosing host nations, FIFA
often argues that the World Cup will attract business and tourists,
thereby boosting the economy. By targeting developing countries like
Qatar and Brazil--places where economic growth is paramount--FIFA has
transformed itself from a soccer organization into a development agency
where the World Cup is simply one of many tools to foster growth. In
return, FIFA asks for full tax exemptions from the host country in
"parties involved in the hosting and staging of an event."
Brazil will lose over $248.7 million due to FIFA's tax policies, but
ultimately, these losses dwarf in comparison to the massive profits
of hosting the World Cup; Brazil is expected to gain over $90 billion
in revenue. Of course, soccer is not a panacea. The long-term impact
of hosting the World Cup is still relatively unknown, especially in
developing countries like South Africa.
Even if long-term profits are low, the World Cup provides these growing
nations with media attention. "Sport is the biggest contributor to
nation building and social cohesion.... This is not about money; it
is about recognition," noted Fikile Mbalula, sports minister during
the South Africa World Cup. The World Cup brings "intangible benefits."
FIFA's motto, "For the Game. For the World," is representative
of the organization's two leading expenses. FIFA spent 70 percent
of its funds on its sport between 2007-2010 but left more than 22
percent of the remaining assets for philanthropic ventures. In fact,
FIFA was one of the first organizations to create a corporate social
responsibility unit, using its endowment to support the Financial
Assistance Programme, the Goal Programme, and smaller charities like
SOS Children's Villages.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee felt so strongly about FIFA that it
nominated the game of soccer in 2001 and former FIFA president Dr.
Joćo Havelange in 2012. President Blatter's recent initiative,
Handshake for Peace, suggests that FIFA will continue to increase its
humanitarian presence (as Blatter pines for the Nobel). "In setting
up the Peace Prize, Alfred Nobel wished to promote fraternity between
nations, and it is our belief that football has a central role to
play in that cause...The Handshake for Peace will be a symbol that
allows the world to see the stars of football greet and respect each
other when the match is over," wrote Blatter in a letter.
Recent corruption scandals, however, have tarnished FIFA's public
image. Following the Nobel Peace Prize nomination, bribery reports
against Joćo Havelange forced him to resign entirely from FIFA
in 2013. President Blatter, although innocent in the 2013 report,
faces similar bribery charges regarding the choice of Qatar as host
country for the 2022 games. Blatter's elections are also questionable:
he has run unopposed in his past two elections and is looking towards
a fifth term in 2015.
Over the past eight years, spending on the World Cup has skyrocketed.
Estimates indicate that Brazil will spend over $11 billion--that's
triple the amount South Africa spent and almost seven times the amount
Germany spent. For developing countries with less robust economies,
the pressure to create lavish stadiums and new hotels seems ludicrous,
especially when FIFA refuses to pay taxes.
Still, this corruption is not necessarily inherent to FIFA. The 2014
World Cup has brought attention to a variety of problems endemic to the
organization and Brazil. Discussions of corruption, rising inequality,
and increased spending have flooded the news in weeks leading up to
the World Cup. Yet these issues are only part of the greater problem.
Soccer, as a sport, is and will always remain the same. Problems of
corruption arise as FIFA increases its social and political influence.
FIFA should continue to support charities and world peace to an
extent. But receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, issuing vague promises
of economic growth to host nations, or facilitating greater diplomacy
between countries--these endeavors lie beyond the scope of a soccer
organization. While such pursuits are honorable, they have detracted
from FIFA's commitment to soccer. At the end of the day, FIFA must
choose whether it is "For the Game" or "For the World."
Adam Echelman is an editorial assistant at the World Policy Journal.
http://www.worldpolicy.org/blog/2014/06/11/game-or-world
From: A. Papazian
World Policy
June 11 2014
June 11, 2014 - 12:09pm | admin
By Adam Echelman
Over the past 30 years, FIFA has risen rapidly to become one of the
world's most influential institutions. With World Cup venues in new
locations like Brazil, Russia, and Qatar, it seems President Sepp
Blatter is taking on an aggressive agenda that goes beyond simply
organizing soccer tournaments. Indeed, FIFA has played such a prominent
role in international affairs that Blatter fancies himself a viable
candidate for the 2014 Nobel Peace Prize.
Critics of FIFA, however, claim that corruption charges and
commercial incentives undermine the association's political and
social achievements. In many ways, those critics are right. The
problem lies not in FIFA's leadership but more broadly in its sudden
and rapid expansion. By increasing its philanthropic and diplomatic
influence, FIFA has lost track of its true purpose and exposed itself
to corruption. FIFA must prioritize soccer over political opportunism
if it wants to succeed in the future.
To understand FIFA's power, you must first understand the game. Soccer
is ubiquitous, from Syrian refugee camps to the Chinese Super League,
from street-ball to stadiums. It is the world's most popular sport
with an estimated 270 million players and referees--making the World
Cup the largest and most popular single-event sporting competition.
With over 3.2 billion viewers (46 percent of the world's population)
from 204 broadcasting countries, the World Cup has become a stage for
international diplomacy. Argentina exacted revenge for the Falklands
War by defeating the UK in a qualifying match; Iran and the U.S. came
together in an unprecedented show of peace over a 1998 World Cup game;
tensions over the Armenian genocide exploded as Turkey faced Armenia
on the field. In 2002, FIFA asked Japan and South Korea to co-host
the World Cup. Despite their tumultuous history and weak diplomatic
ties, both countries agreed to FIFA's request, inaugurating a period
of unparalleled peace and exchange between the two nations--all in
the name of soccer.
The extension of the World Cup into South Africa, Brazil, Russia,
and Qatar highlights FIFA's political growth, but it also hints at the
organization's philanthropic mission. When choosing host nations, FIFA
often argues that the World Cup will attract business and tourists,
thereby boosting the economy. By targeting developing countries like
Qatar and Brazil--places where economic growth is paramount--FIFA has
transformed itself from a soccer organization into a development agency
where the World Cup is simply one of many tools to foster growth. In
return, FIFA asks for full tax exemptions from the host country in
"parties involved in the hosting and staging of an event."
Brazil will lose over $248.7 million due to FIFA's tax policies, but
ultimately, these losses dwarf in comparison to the massive profits
of hosting the World Cup; Brazil is expected to gain over $90 billion
in revenue. Of course, soccer is not a panacea. The long-term impact
of hosting the World Cup is still relatively unknown, especially in
developing countries like South Africa.
Even if long-term profits are low, the World Cup provides these growing
nations with media attention. "Sport is the biggest contributor to
nation building and social cohesion.... This is not about money; it
is about recognition," noted Fikile Mbalula, sports minister during
the South Africa World Cup. The World Cup brings "intangible benefits."
FIFA's motto, "For the Game. For the World," is representative
of the organization's two leading expenses. FIFA spent 70 percent
of its funds on its sport between 2007-2010 but left more than 22
percent of the remaining assets for philanthropic ventures. In fact,
FIFA was one of the first organizations to create a corporate social
responsibility unit, using its endowment to support the Financial
Assistance Programme, the Goal Programme, and smaller charities like
SOS Children's Villages.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee felt so strongly about FIFA that it
nominated the game of soccer in 2001 and former FIFA president Dr.
Joćo Havelange in 2012. President Blatter's recent initiative,
Handshake for Peace, suggests that FIFA will continue to increase its
humanitarian presence (as Blatter pines for the Nobel). "In setting
up the Peace Prize, Alfred Nobel wished to promote fraternity between
nations, and it is our belief that football has a central role to
play in that cause...The Handshake for Peace will be a symbol that
allows the world to see the stars of football greet and respect each
other when the match is over," wrote Blatter in a letter.
Recent corruption scandals, however, have tarnished FIFA's public
image. Following the Nobel Peace Prize nomination, bribery reports
against Joćo Havelange forced him to resign entirely from FIFA
in 2013. President Blatter, although innocent in the 2013 report,
faces similar bribery charges regarding the choice of Qatar as host
country for the 2022 games. Blatter's elections are also questionable:
he has run unopposed in his past two elections and is looking towards
a fifth term in 2015.
Over the past eight years, spending on the World Cup has skyrocketed.
Estimates indicate that Brazil will spend over $11 billion--that's
triple the amount South Africa spent and almost seven times the amount
Germany spent. For developing countries with less robust economies,
the pressure to create lavish stadiums and new hotels seems ludicrous,
especially when FIFA refuses to pay taxes.
Still, this corruption is not necessarily inherent to FIFA. The 2014
World Cup has brought attention to a variety of problems endemic to the
organization and Brazil. Discussions of corruption, rising inequality,
and increased spending have flooded the news in weeks leading up to
the World Cup. Yet these issues are only part of the greater problem.
Soccer, as a sport, is and will always remain the same. Problems of
corruption arise as FIFA increases its social and political influence.
FIFA should continue to support charities and world peace to an
extent. But receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, issuing vague promises
of economic growth to host nations, or facilitating greater diplomacy
between countries--these endeavors lie beyond the scope of a soccer
organization. While such pursuits are honorable, they have detracted
from FIFA's commitment to soccer. At the end of the day, FIFA must
choose whether it is "For the Game" or "For the World."
Adam Echelman is an editorial assistant at the World Policy Journal.
http://www.worldpolicy.org/blog/2014/06/11/game-or-world
From: A. Papazian