The Guardian view on Sepp Blatter’s re-election
World football’s governing body had its big chance today. But it blew
it . The ball was at Fifa’s feet. The global audience was gripped. The
goal was gaping wide. At which point Fifa fell on its face. If an
Arsenal or an Aston Villa player misses a chance in Saturday’s FA Cup
final at Wembley, it will be described as a turning point. So it was
with what happened in Zurich. The Cup final, though, is only a game.
With apologies to Bill Shankly , Fifa’s failure is far more important.
Fifa could have responded to the arrests of many of its top
executives by showing that it grasps what has finally happened to the
credibility of world football. If Fifa had got it, rather than
continuing in denial, today would have seen Sepp Blatter step down, the
2018 and 2022 World Cups put on hold and an independent inquiry into
Fifa’s future set up. Instead, most of Fifa put its fingers firmly in
its ears, with Mr Blatter eventually reselected for a fifth term , amid
meaningless promises of internal reform and a determination to go ahead
with the tournaments in Russia and Qatar. Judging by some remarks,
including Mr Blatter’s own, the conclusion that many delegates preferred
to draw from this week’s events is that they were a political conspiracy
against Fifa.
The victory for the status quo nevertheless proves some political
realities that cannot just be ignored. Mr Blatter survived because so
many interests, not just his own, are bound into the system over which
he presides. These interests go far beyond the kickbacks and corruption
of individuals, important though that is. They include the national
benefits to football in the developing nations, some of them large ones,
that secure Mr Blatter’s regime. They also include the huge commercial
benefits that Fifa can promise to multinational sponsors of its golden
goose, the World Cup .
These things are not going to change without a fight. So, to mix
sporting metaphors, the ball is now firmly in the challengers’ court.
They must try to use this week’s events to encourage and coordinate
Fifa’s multinational sponsors and television clients to turn the screw
on the Blatter regime. But that will not be easily done.
In the end, it is hard to envisage a convincing transformation of
Fifa without boycotts that are enforced and credible. Whether television
companies, which provide more than half of Fifa’s annual income of
£822m, can be persuaded to boycott Fifa games and tournaments, above all
the World Cup, must be very doubtful. The global public appetite for
football is immense - it is at the root of Fifa’s power. Commercial
sponsors like Visa, Nike and Coca-Cola, which provide most of the rest
of Fifa’s income, may be another matter, with more to lose
reputationally than the media, not least from Fifa-related boycotts of
their own products.
The real issue, however, is whether sufficient national football
associations and their publics are truly up for the fight, if the fight
involves boycotting the World Cup and the revenues it generates. If they
are, all well and good. Football is a sport in which club loyalty often
dwarfs national loyalty among fans, and the big western clubs would
undoubtedly see advantages.
|