Much has been reported in the last few days about the corruption charges that have been leveled against some 14 individuals either in FIFA’s governing body or with associated marketing companies. Expect to hear a lot more, we predict, in the coming weeks and months.
In recent years, law enforcement in the United States and in a couple of European countries have struck at the edges of the international professional soccer federation as rumors of bribery and corrupt tournament site selections floated about, but it was not until last week that apparent wrongdoing on a major scale was revealed when the U.S. Justice Department arrested 14 individuals who were attending a meeting in Geneva and laid out a long list of examples of their illegal behavior. Bribery, kickbacks and money laundering were among them, a culmination of investigations that involved 33 countries.
FIFA officials are accused of favoring some regional broadcast media and marketing companies in exchange for payments to the organization and to regional leaders, many routed to avoid detection, seemingly as a part of daily business. Just below the surface, apparently, is the possibility that World Cup site selection was included in the misdeeds. Questions have been raised as to how Qatar and Russia received their designations as host countries in 2018 and 2022 for the every-four-year event.
Soccer may rank lower in popularity to several other major sports in the United States, but it has a huge following elsewhere. It is reported that four times as many people watched the most recent World Cup than watched the Super Bowl. FIFA is a billion-dollar operation.
FIFA funding for soccer development and expansion goes to many of its approximately 200 member countries, some of it properly and well-spent. But reporting is turning up examples of millions of dollars being spent in locations where soccer is limited, with regional FIFA leaders benefitting personally. On Grand Cayman Island in the Caribbean, where construction of a $2.2 million soccer center is years behind schedule, FIFA paid home swimming pool construction costs for the FIFA leader from that country. That questionable dealing was reported in The New York Times.
On the positive side, perhaps, FIFA has supported the significant growth of women’s soccer worldwide. Critics, however, say that popularity would have occurred anyway.
What has not been shown so far is that FIFA’s multiple categories of bribery and self-dealing affected any of the play on the soccer field. There has been no indication that players or teams held back, that victories were not deserved.
For many soccer spectators, that may be critical. Fans may take the position that FIFA’s leadership can behave as it wishes, staying in five-star hotels, using private jets and pocketing unearned cash, as long as there is honest soccer play.
When prosecutors can show that game ticket prices would have been less expensive and television access greater if FIFA had operated with integrity and transparency, a more significant number of soccer fans worldwide should take notice of the Justice Department’s unfolding initiative.
In the meantime, the number and breadth across multiple countries of the illegal schemes that FIFA practiced seems extraordinary. If true, quite a few people in significant FIFA positions deserve to lose their livelihood, and more.
