Rich and powerful, Fifa cannot reform itself

What you need to know:

  • Sponsors must use the power of their money to force Fifa to embrace inclusivity, good governance and accountability.
  • Fifa needs independent, global oversight.

There was something sickeningly and appallingly familiar about the lead-up to and eventual election of the President of the Federation of International Football Federations (Fifa) on Friday evening and in 2011. Then, as now, the poll was held amid high-profile carnage and red-hot wreckage of a corruption scandal involving officials in Fifa’s innermost sanctum.

Then, as now, President Sepp Blatter blamed the graft scandal blighting his global administration of football on exalted but wayward and evasive individuals on the Fifa high table. On both occasions, it was about allegations of corruption bedevilling the process that made Russia and Qatar hosts of the 2018 and 2022 Fifa World Cups respectively.

As a fig leaf, Fifa hired American lawyer Michael Garcia to investigate accusations that its all-powerful 22-member Executive Committee was bribed to make Russia and Qatar World Cup hosts. When he handed in his report last November, Fifa publicly said Mr Garcia had cleared the organisation of the charges of bribery.

Mr Garcia publicly disagreed with Fifa’s summary of his report and resigned. He asked Fifa to make his report public in its entirety. That has not happened.

But last week, as Fifa fatcats were arrested in dawn raids from their exclusive seaside Zurich hotel, spin doctor Walter de Gregario brazenly claimed Swiss police were acting on Fifa’s prompting.

Four years ago, as three days ago, Mr Blatter cast himself as the person best positioned to both reform and rid Fifa of corruption. On Friday, as in 2011, Mr Blatter, who has been at Fifa for 40 years, presented himself as the stalwart who would not allow his beloved organisation to be dragged through the muck of corruption.

The 79-year-old’s I-am-innocent-but-will-clean-up-the-mess creed is a self-preservation strategy. It worked in 2011 and again on Friday.

But this simple question portends a huge test: Can he rid Fifa of graft now when he has been helmsman for 17 years? Fifa requires inclusivity, transparency and accountability, which are unlikely to come from within.

EXCLUSIVE CLUB

Here’s why. If Fifa was a business, auditors would have scrutinised its books of account and the board and shareholders would long ago have demanded the exit of Mr Blatter & Co. Fifa is not a business but an exclusive club for an elitist clique whose members cannot make demands of Mr Blatter.

If Fifa were a non-governmental organisation, it would get donor funds as the principal recipient and disburse these to sub-recipients (SRs) to carry out specific projects. The SRs would be required to account to Fifa which would, in turn, be held to account by the donor. Nobody holds Fifa to account.

If the six confederations that make up Fifa were answerable to respective national football bodies and they, in turn, were answerable to local football fraternities (we, the fans), then, there would be bottom-up and up-down lines of answerability. That is not the case here.

Fifa rules the world’s truly global and most popular sport, which is awash with money. That means power: Brazil changed its law to allow for the sale of alcohol at the 2014 World Cup venues because Fifa demanded it because a beer-maker is its sponsor.

Of course, the World Cup is the ultimate and global marketing platform and, therefore, a fortune-maker for Fifa.

In the lead-up to the 2014 World Cup, FIFA.com reported in a post titled FAQ: Setting the record straight that: “In fact, Fifa spends 550,000 USD on worldwide football development — every single day. What is more, we also spend nearly 2 million USD on organising international competitions — every single day.”

In March, Business Insider, quoting Fifa’s 2014 financial statement, reported that the organisation generated US$4.8 billion from the World Cup in Brazil in revenue and a profit of US$2.6 billion. Of the money so generated, US$2.4 billion was from TV rights fees, US$1.6 billion from sponsorships and US$527 million in ticket sales.

But Fifa did not contribute to the construction of stadia or transport infrastructure, which gobbled up most of the US$15 billion Brazil spent on the World Cup. That was borne by Brazilian taxpayers. Fifa invests zilch to get rich; exploits dirt poor fans to get filthy rich!

Exclusive, rich and powerful, Fifa cannot reform itself. But corporate sponsors Coca-Cola, VISA, Hyundai, KIA and Adidas, and others, which back Fifa to the tune of US$50 million annually, can force the organisation on the path of reform.

These sponsors must use the power of their money to force Fifa to embrace inclusivity, good governance and accountability. Fifa needs independent, global oversight.

Opanga is a media consultant; [email protected]