FIFA Member Admits World Cup Decision Was Political

Jerome Valcke, the General-Secretary of FIFA, told reporters on Monday that the decision to choose Russia for the 2018 World Cup and Qatar for the 2022 World Cup was indeed political, as I argued in my previous post. 

While he denied rumors that Qatar's bid committee paid $1.5 million to two members of FIFA's executive committee or was ready to pay almost $80 million to Argentina's national soccer organization, he did say frankly that the decision was "political." 

As he was quoted to have put it, 

Russia deserves it, and Qatar will be an interesting story. We have eight years until Russia hosts it, with a huge commitment on the part of Putin. And 12 years for Qatar, which has huge resources.

So, it really was a combination of self-interested politics and "an interesting story." The Middle Eastern angle plus "huge resources" won out over a more environmentally friendly bid from the U.S.--a bid which would have also built on the increasing interest in soccer among Americans who celebrated Landon Donovan's last-minute-of-extra-time, "shot heard around the world" goal to beat Algeria  and win Group C this summer.

How many Americans will make the trip to tiny, hot Qatar? I hope to be among them, but I suspect there won't be many of us. It's disappointing for Americans who love soccer that FIFA wasn't interested in building a fan base here. That, along with a lower environmental impact, would have also made a great story--and would have saved everyone a lot of money.

But that's politics. It constantly surprises us.

Why FIFA chose Russia and Qatar for the World Cup

Yesterday, the governing body of international soccer, FIFA, announced which countries won the right to stage the World Cup in 2018 and 2022. (Brazil will host in 2014.)

Many observers were shocked that they chose Russia for 2018 and Qatar for 2022. It was the Qatar decision that was the real shocker for me. After all, the U.S. was contending for 2022, and we had Henry Kissinger, Morgan Freeman, and Bill Clinton negotiating for us (and Barack Obama sending a final video testimonial). Like many Americans, I was hoping to be able to watch a game in person in my home country, but I'm slowly overcoming my shock and disappointment enough to be able to analyze the decision.

As a political scientist, I've been trained to analyze political choices, and, trust me, FIFA is a highly politicized body. A general rule of thumb or theory coming from my field is that decisions combining material self-interest and cultural identities tend to win out. 

Material self-interest? Well, Russia and Qatar have lots of oil and natural gas money to pay for construction of new stadiums, and to wine and dine the members of the FIFA board, who make the decision. A whole academic sub-field could be devoted to corruption (or at least influence-peddling, vote-trading, logrolling, etc.) in international sports decision-making.

But the cultural identity part makes for a good story (and definitely plays into decisions, when combined with self-interest). This will be the first time they'll ever play the World Cup in Russia, and, more symbolically, the first time they'll ever play it in the Middle East. The folks at FIFA really believe that they contribute to harmony, peace, and understanding. What better way to send that message than to choose post-Communist Russia and a tiny Gulf emirate that's on the move. Integrating Russia and the Middle East into the world community? A nice image.

I love the Middle East, and I'm already thinking of booking my flights to Qatar for 2022. But as a soccer purist, I'm appalled to learn that they'll be playing in air-conditioned, open-air stadiums. The Persian/Arabian Gulf in June and July will be running daytime temperatures around 120 degrees Fahrenheit, so there's no other way to make the bid plausible. Qatar will now have to build 9 new stadiums that they are promising to dismantle and share with developing countries after the tournament is over. But Qatar insists that their approach is carbon-neutral, and won't contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. (Really?!) To keep green grass alive in that climate will require massive inputs of energy, in a tiny country the size of Connecticut with less than 400,000 actual citizens (as opposed to the 2 million expatriate workers).

This was a fascinating decision by FIFA, and all too political.

Analyzing the World Cup Sweet 16

OK, so I've got a serious case of World Cup Fever--or I'm being brainwashed by the global civil religion of the World Cup (see my previous post here). I just can't help but watch as much of every game as possible.

For those who haven't been glued to the news, the first stage of the World Cup tournament is over, and now starts the Round of 16, which is a single-elimination tournament. If you like making predictions similar to those made during the NCAA men's basketball tourney, I put together a single page bracket in this document. Feel free to print this out and follow the tourney the next few weeks.

Apart from the sheer fun of guessing which team will win, I couldn't help but offer a quick analysis of the tournament so far. I think the results so far demonstrate that globalization is allowing non-traditional soccer powers to compete more effectively with the powers. While traditional powerhouses like France and Italy were ousted, some definitely non-traditional "minnows" were able to beat them. Among the non-elite teams that made it in, there are Uruguay, South Korea, Ghana, Slovakia, Chile, Paraguay, and Japan--and they make up nearly half the field. If we include the U.S.A. as a non-power, then that's exactly half the field.

Of course, that still leaves Argentina, Brazil, England, Germany, Mexico, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Spain--all of whom have made runs deep into the tournament or won it. The safe money is on one of these teams winning.

So far the big surprises have been the smaller South American sides and the two Asian teams, Japan and South Korea. They, along with the US, have benefited from the leveling effect of globalization. Competing with the top teams in the world, sending national team players to the top European leagues, hiring the best coaches in the world, building up national club systems, learning from the global leaders--all of these things have helped non-traditional soccer nations succeed through emulation.

The other major upsets during this tournament thus far--Uruguay holding France scoreless, Switzerland beating Spain, Serbia beating Germany, Slovakia beating Italy, or Algeria holding England scoreless--also suggest that traditionally weak teams have learned how to compete.

Despite all this leveling-through-globalization, however, I expect one of four teams to win: Spain, which has never reached the final game; the Netherlands, which made two finals but was runner-up both times; Brazil, which has won five times; or Argentina, which has won twice.

Still, my heart (if not my head) is with the USA. I would absolutely love to see the US national team make a run to the semifinals or finals. They'll have to beat Brazil or the Netherlands to get there, and then they will have proven that they have gone from being a soccer nobody to a soccer power. And then we can thank globalization for that, even if they don't win. But first they need to beat Ghana. Go Yanks!