Hosting mega sport events like the Fifa World Cup and Olympic Games have traditionally embodied a sense of honour, prestige, and national pride. However, in recent years questions have been raised about why cities would compete to host mega sport events which have been described as a “corporate sinkhole sucking billions of dollars and a city’s future into a bottomless abyss of excess”.

In Brazil an estimated 170,000 people were forcibly removed in preparation for Fifa 2014. The different facets of sport (participation, competition, performance, administration, resources) cannot be analysed in abstraction from political contestations.  

Organisations like Fifa, the International Olympics Committee (IOC) and the Commonwealth Games Federation (which are not known for transparency and public accountability) have basically developed a “franchise” model which delineates the form and structure of sporting events in significant detail.

However, many cities that initially aspired to host such events have been forced to reconsider their support, and to withdraw from the bidding process, illustrating a new trend.

For example, bids for the Winter Olympics 2022 were reduced to Beijing/Almaty, and Summer Olympics 2024 was reduced to LA/Paris. The main reasons for this shift have been prohibitive costs, ephemeral and exaggerated benefits, negative social impacts, and quite often under-utilised post-event facilities and infrastructure become costly white elephants. The host nation had to also commit to absorbing any cost overruns.

Potential host cities had to also be sensitive to local public opinion, which had traditionally and historically been overlooked. A major public concern is that the money that is spent on infrastructure development could alternatively be used to address the social challenges in the host city and country.

Generally, bids for mega events are promoted by influential, politically connected persons and groups in the private and public spheres who operate in abstraction from public accountability. Gradually, authoritarian governments that do not have to take cognisance of public opinion are bidding for mega sport events.

In April 2013, Jerome Valcke, Secretary General of Fifa candidly acknowledged his penchant for supporting countries like Qatar and Russia: “I will say something which is crazy, but less democracy is sometimes better for organising a World Cup… When you have a very strong head of state who can decide, as maybe [President Vladimir] Putin can do in 2018… that is easier for us organisers than a country such as Germany, where you have to negotiate at different levels”.

Visit Daily Maverick’s home page for more news, analysis and investigations

There was outrage in progressive global circles about the death of at least 6,500 migrant workers on construction sites preparing for Fifa 2022 in Qatar. The choice of Qatar was viewed as a controversial decision, taken during the leadership of Sepp Blatter in December 2010. 

According to Human Rights Watch, “millions of workers who migrated to Qatar for promised economic opportunities did not find “dignity and pride”, but were instead subject to grave abuses, some of which could amount to modern slavery. These abuses, which take place under the restrictive kafala system were already well documented when Fifa awarded Qatar the World Cup in 2010.”

Players from several countries, including Australia, Canada, Sweden, Denmark, England, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland and Wales have said that they would support symbolic protests about human rights abuses in Qatar.

As the BBC reported, Fifa President Gianni Infantino responded by urging players to focus on the game and keep out of politics: “We know football does not live in a vacuum and we are equally aware that there are many challenges and difficulties of a political nature all around the world. But please do not allow football to be dragged into every ideological or political battle that exists. At Fifa, we try to respect all opinions and beliefs, without handing out moral lessons to the rest of the world (emphasis added).

“No one people or culture or nation is ‘better’ than any other. This principle is the very foundation stone of mutual respect and non-discrimination. And this is also one of the core values of football. So, please let’s all remember that and let football take centre stage. We have the unique occasion and opportunity to welcome and embrace everyone, regardless of origin, background, religion, gender, sexual orientation or nationality.”

Fifa – the Fédération Internationale de Football Association – was established in Paris on 21 May 1904 by French journalist Robert Guérin and initial membership comprised countries from Western Europe.  Its present membership comprises football associations from 208 countries, exceeding that of the UN (192 members). The president of Fifa and senior officials were accorded the status equivalent to that of heads of state internationally.

In its quest to increase membership, Fifa often turned a blind eye to the undermining of democracy and the violation of human rights in member states. According to Martin Ivens of Bloomberg, the “World Cup was milked for propaganda by Mussolini’s Italy in 1934, the vicious military junta of Argentina in 1978 and Vladimir Putin’s Russia in 2018”.

There were allegations that senior Fifa officials were close to corrupt governments and ignored the influence of drug cartels on the game in Latin America. In the early 1960s Fifa implicitly espoused apartheid when its British president Sir Stanley Rous supported the Football Association of South Africa and its racially segregated teams and matches.  It was only in the early 1980s that Fifa “began to take seriously the anti-racism clause of the official statutes”.

During this period there was another dramatic turn as the commercial/business arm of Fifa grew exponentially, ostensibly in response to the development needs of football in Africa, Asia and Latin America.

However, according to investigative journalist and author, the late Andrew Jennings, there were concerns that Fifa had become part of the “capitalist entertainment business”; that it had turned football into a “millionaire’s gambling casino”; and that there was a lack of transparency and accountability about how its funds were spent – especially payments made to senior officials.

Jennings investigated the “structures of Blatter’s Fifa” and discovered “the simple buying of loyalty through secret distribution of World Cup tickets and unaudited ‘development grants’,” and concluded that this was “typical organised crime”.

There have also been controversies and allegations of corruption relating to how Fifa sells its TV rights, elects its president and chooses the hosts for the World Cup. For example, as reported in 2008 by Jack Ewing on Bloomberg, “there was barely a murmur in 2006 when a federal judge in New York found that Blatter subordinates secretly tried to strike a sponsorship deal with Visa in violation of a contract with long-time sponsor Mastercard. Fifa paid Mastercard $90-million to settle the case.”

Before a ball was kicked, Fifa had earned R25-billion from the TV broadcast rights and sponsorship agreements for the 2010 World Cup, exceeding any previous event. In South Africa, Fifa was largely presented in the public domain as a benign, benevolent organisation that would benefit the country and the African continent.

However, it is now widely accepted that: i) the African connection was mythical; ii) the benefits for poor and disadvantaged South Africans was exaggerated and at best ephemeral; iii) the bid process for 2010 was not transparent and the ruthless profit motive and political machinations of Fifa were ignored as it was subliminally presented as a philanthropic organisation; and iv) the billions spent on preparing for the 2010 FWC would have made a huge impact in addressing South Africa’s social, welfare, health and education challenges.

The costs of the stadiums trebled without any public oversight. In November 2015 the Competition Commission identified several large construction companies that were guilty of collusive practices that was estimated to have cost the fiscus R14-billion.

Although hosted in a developing country in 2010, South Africa was so compliant with Fifa’s every whim and fancy, and meekly pliable, that its profits increased by 50% compared to the 2006 event in Germany. Also, insufficient consideration had been given to the utilisation and viability of facilities after the event.

Mega sporting events such as the Fifa World Cup should create zones of opportunity for those who had been historically disadvantaged, integrate the city so that urban resources are accessible to all citizens, and ensure popular participation in the planning process. Greater emphasis should be placed on policies that sustain growth through redistribution. This will also require a more direct intervention by the state than that currently envisaged by international agencies such as Fifa.

The preamble to its updated code of ethics states that “Fifa bears a special responsibility to safeguard the integrity and reputation of football worldwide. Fifa is constantly striving to protect the image of football, and especially that of Fifa, from jeopardy or harm as a result of illegal, immoral or unethical methods and practices.”

Meanwhile, the breaking news is that there are some very serious allegations that eight Ecuadorian players were bribed to the tune of $7.4-million to lose the opening game with Qatar.

Let the games begin… DM