HEAD spinning yet?
The notion that corruption was widespread in Fifa circles has been around since the original creation myth. The difference is that we’ve seen the biggest heads if not roll then at least take their place in the guillotine.
From Amos Adamu, Jack Warner and Mohammed bin Hammam back in 2011 to Chung Mong-Joon, Worawi Makudi, Michel Platini and the supremo himself, Sepp Blatter, the list of Fifa executives suspended or banned has been remarkable. Not so much because evidence of malfeasance – whether corruption or simply unethical behavior – has been formally alleged and in some cases proven, but because this is all spilling out into the open.
The latest accusations concern the 2006 World Cup. And, even though the vote to host the tournament took place 15 years ago, evidence is only coming to light now, thanks to German magazine Der Spiegel. They allege that the late head of Adidas, Robert-Louis Dreyfus, “secretly” loaned some £7 million to the German bid committee prior to the vote in June 2000. That money – according to Der Spiegel – was then used to secure the votes of four Asian delegates and ultimately tip the scales in Germany’s favor.
There had always been a cloud of controversy over that World Cup, not least because Germany beat South Africa 12-11, after the late Charlie Dempsey, an ExCo member from New Zealand (but born in Glasgow) abstained in the final round of voting. Had Dempsey backed South Africa, the rainbow nation would have won, since the tie-breaker would then have gone to the Fifa president, Blatter, who had campaigned hard for an African World Cup (then again, it’s Blatter, so you never know...).
The long-standing narrative had been that Dempsey, who was 79 at the time, had been “bullied” into abstaining. He never explained his decision, but contemporaneous reports say he was “upset” and “confused” at the time.
But Der Spiegel’s allegations – and those made in June by another German paper, Die Zeit, which claimed that the German chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder, had authorized the sale of weapons to Saudi Arabia as part of a vote-buying exchange – are a body blow to the European game. Germany’s bid committee was led by Franz Beckenbauer (who himself was suspended by Fifa in 2014 for not cooperating with the Ethics Committee who was investigating him) and Wolfgang Niersbach, the head of the German Football Association. Niersbach is a staunch ally of Platini and a member of the Executive Committees of both Fifa and Uefa.
These allegations – at the very least – undermine even further the moral high ground Platini’s Uefa have been trying to take towards Blatter and his allies, most of whom are in the developing world. The subtext – that Blatter gained and maintained power – by allowing all sorts of shenanigans from certain non-European nations has long been implied by Platini and his backers. However, now that Europe – and particularly Platini and Niersbach – have their own allegations to deal with, the landscape changes somewhat.
That’s why you can’t help but wonder about the revelations. It’s not a coincidence that a lot of stories are emerging now, with so much at stake. It doesn’t make them any less important, of course, but it does underscore how the battle for control of the world game is being fought as much via leaks as anything else. Now, more than ever, it feels as if Fifa is eating itself.
WHAT’S worse than losing your first two Champions League group games?
Losing your first two and then facing Bayern Munich, home and away, in matchdays three and four.
As of yesterday afternoon, the German champions had won 12 consecutive games in all competitions, scoring 40 and conceding just five. All this despite the fact that Arjen Robben has been out since August and Franck Ribery since last season, while their centre-backs have been crippled by injury: Holger Badstuber, Javi Martinez and Mehdi Benatia have managed just four starts between them.
Realistically, Arsenal need four points from the two Bayern games to have a shot at qualifying. And, even then, a second-place finish won’t mean much if they find themselves unseeded and at the mercy of a Barcelona or Real Madrid in the knockout round.
You wonder, though, if maybe a first-round exit would be all that bad for Arsene Wenger. That sense of ennui, that perennial dissatisfaction with achieving minimum results – a top-four finish, a round of 16 exit in Europe, just enough to keep them ticking over but never looking like viable contenders – would be wiped away with a run at the title. And in a season where Chelsea fluffed their initial lines, where Liverpool sacked their manager and where Manchester United continue to look like a work in progress, then maybe this is as good a chance as they’ll have to challenge for the title, with only Manchester City looking a clear notch above.
WITH 20 of the 24 nations having secured their place at Euro 2016 and only the play-offs left, the overriding sense is that, for the neutral, this was a good qualifying campaign (for Holland and, of course, Scotland, both of whom missed out, less so).
Maybe it was the fact that Uefa’s “week of football” and staggered kick-offs actually gave us the chance to watch many more games. Or maybe it was the compelling storylines offered up by the likes of Iceland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Albania and Slovakia, all of whom will be making their first appearance at the Euros. Iceland and Northern Ireland are, of course, tiny, Wales will be making their first appearance at a major tournament since 1958 and Slovakia finally make it at their sixth attempt. As for Albania, this is their first ever major competition and it could be their last: half their squad hail from Kosovo and if, as expected, the breakaway republic gain Fifa recognition, most won’t be back.
On the pitch though, what struck you was how homogenous the football was. There are no significant national characteristics, the notion of contrasting styles has gone out the window. Portugal are Norway, with better players; Croatia, Belgium with checkered shirts. Tactical innovation travels at the speed of light, the better players all play in the same leagues where they’re exposed to the same ideas. It’s not necessarily a bad thing, it just means that you compete on talent and drive, rather than tactical approaches. And that the facile stereotypes of yesteryear are long gone.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel