A belated congratulations to South Africa for winning the privilege to host the 2010 soccer World Cup. The country narrowly missed out the chance to host the 2006 Cup under controversial circumstances.
South Korea and Japan co-hosted to 2002 tournament. But before then, only Europe (8 times) and the Americas (7) had ever hosted the event.
Following the controversial vote for 2006, soccer's world governing body FIFA changed the rules so that the hosting of the world's largest single-sport event would hereby rotate between each of organization's six regions (North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Oceania).
The decision was a blow to the whiny Euro-centric lobby (the most vocal crowd in world soccer) who felt that it was a travesty that Old Continent would no longer host every other World Cup, as they had come to believe it was their God-given right to do so.
South Africa beat out its main rival Morocco for 2010. This was also a blow to the Euro-centrics who, grudgingly forced to accept a World Cup in "the dark continent," were pulling for Morocco because of its proximity to Europe. They were shocked that this did not appear to be the only consideration taken into account by the decision-makers.
South Africa's campaign was regularly attacked by this Chicken Little crowd. They showered the media with doom-and-gloom predictions if "crime ridden" South Africa were chosen for the World Cup. Crime would ruin the experience for fans. The distance from Europe would depress crowd sizes.
The truth of the matter is that this crowd didn't like South Africa because it's radically different from Europe; they would've tolerated Morocco because it was familiar to European vacationers and because it was so close to Europe that European fans didn't necessarily need to lodge there.
The same crowd also attacked the choice of Japan and South Korea. Some those attacks included: "They eat cats there" and "The huge time zone difference would make life miserable for European TV viewers."
South Africa's victory wasn't a victory for the African continent, despite how some media portrayed it. South Africa's victory was a victory for the concept of soccer as a global sport shared by all nations, not just richer ones. One whose greatest spectacle will be enjoyed first-hand by citizens in the developing world for the very first time.
FIFA got something right. It was bound to happen eventually.
7 comments:
Your optimism that anyone from developing countries other than South African residents will attend this tournament is touching. Soccer may well be "a global sport shared by all nations, not just richer ones" but the World Cup is a tournament of the best of those footballing nations, by definition it is not "shared by all". It just so happens that most of the best teams in the world are those from richer countries. Fixing the hosting so that it rotates around six regions is a shabby attempt to deflect criticism of the rank corruption endemic in this organisation and appease delegates from lesser footballing countries.
I have a post about this at my blog
Frank,
a) The World Cup IS shared by all the continents in that every one of them (save Oceania) is represented.
b) Your comments about corruption in FIFA are absolutely true, but this have nothing to do with the merits of rotating the Cup.
...represented at the finals, of course I mean.
Ok, then: "not shared equally"
As for corruption, my point is that FIFA delegates are spread evenly throughout the world and don't reflect the actual footballing powers. Thus, the Papua New Guinea repesentative has the same vote as the Italian representative. Throwing delegates from lesser footballing nations a bone in the form of a promise to host the tournament in their own continent every six years is a useful way of keeping them sweet and not disrupting the gravy train.
"As for corruption, my point is that FIFA delegates are spread evenly throughout the world and don't reflect the actual footballing powers. Thus, the Papua New Guinea repesentative has the same vote as the Italian representative. Throwing delegates from lesser footballing nations a bone in the form of a promise to host the tournament in their own continent every six years is a useful way of keeping them sweet and not disrupting the gravy train."
Maybe you'd prefer something along the lines where "powerful" members have a veto over major decisions? You can see how well that's worked for the UN Security Council.
As flawed as America's electoral system, I'm glad things don't work that way you seem to want. Otherwise, Bill Gates' vote would probably count 200,000 times more than mine.
Frankly, there was corruption in FIFA before WC rotation and there is corruption in FIFA after WC rotation. I don't see rotation as fundamentally affecting the level of corruption.
[I've cross posted this at my blog with a bit more..]
Maybe you'd prefer something along the lines where "powerful" members have a veto over major decisions? You can see how well that's worked for the UN Security Council.Look, FIFA is meant to be the governing organisation of football. It is not analogous to the UN. There are countries which have no interest in football, hardly any footballers and their vote counts exactly the same as a large footballling nation like Brazil. This effectively disenfranchises vast numbers of fans, some "democracy"
Frankly, there was corruption in FIFA before WC rotation and there is corruption in FIFA after WC rotation. I don't see rotation as fundamentally affecting the level of corruption.You miss the point, "Rotation" is a sop to the lesser footballing nations to detract attention from the corruption, I don't maintain that it is behind corruption.
"FIFA is meant to be the governing organisation of football."
Frank, FIFA is meant to be the governing organization of football. But in reality, it's the governing organization of football ASSOCIATIONS.
I think it's analogous to the United Nations in that the UN purports to be the voice of the "international community" but is in fact body of international GOVERNMENTS.
I don't pretend the structure of FIFA is perfect, but how do you propose to improve it?
Some countries do have more interest in football than others, of course. As you know, that's not necessarily reflected on the pitch. Though soccer is skyrockted in popularity in this country in the last ten years, I don't think anyone would argue that soccer's more popular here in the US (#8 in the world rankings) than, say, Northern Ireland (#114) or El Salvador (#101). I went to a US-El Salvador game in Boston; trust me on this one.
Post a Comment