Competition and fraud for the hosting of the 2018 and 2022 world cups

The US plays by the rules, mostly. The others not so much.

The decision to hold both votes simultaneously ostensibly was made to maximize income from sponsors and TV networks, but it has served only to foster behind-the-scenes deal-making and vote-trading.

Author Simon Kuper, writing last week in England’s Financial Times, put it best.

“The campaign to host these World Cups is much like a conclave of cardinals choosing a pope,” Kuper wrote. “It’s a campaign waged mostly behind firmly closed doors, and the very secrecy of the process, and the desperation of the nine bidders to win, invites corruption.”

Even FIFA has admitted the process is flawed.,0,5350916.column

The best bids are most likely from England-2018 and the US 2022 because of the infrastructure that is ready to go, but both are fairly honest nations that will not allow as much profit for the unscrupulous.

England torpedoed their own bid by revealing corruption. How ironic that tying to clean up the process eliminates a country because fifa expects the same autocratic control of a country that they demonstrate with their private company. Of course, clicking on this link to an article about the England bid video will reveal a poor video choice?

This entry was posted on Tuesday, November 30th, 2010 at 15:49 and is filed under Soccer Business. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Comments are closed.

  • Sections

  • Topics

  • Archives

  • Links