Sore Losers After Failed World Cup Bid
December 04, 2010
Trinidad and Tobago
The English Football Association and other commentators who are fuming because England was not successful in their bid to host the World Cup in 2018 have exposed the extent of Britain's corruption all the way to Buckingham Palace.
The English press has long contended that FIFA is a corrupt body and some of their journalists have trained their poison pens at Jack Warner over the years. But in spite of all that is said about FIFA and Warner, the British hierarchy was contented to court FIFA officials to win votes. They had no problem being seen and photographed with Warner as long as they felt he could deliver for them.
If you are courting someone, that does not guarantee you success — much the same as if a guy is courting a girl. If you do not get favour, then suck it up. It reeks of sour grapes to be now screaming corruption and declaring a lack of confidence in FIFA.
It is blatant hypocrisy, arrogance and racism on behalf the English commentators to feel that because the rank and file of their elite institutions courted Warner, that somehow he was obligated to deliver for them. They fail to acknowledge that Warner was being courted by the President and Prime Minister of Russia and the President of the United States of America apart from other powerful leaders around the world. So the supremacy to which the English placed their lobby reeks of their racist colonial attitude.
What is so difficult to understand about FIFA wanting to spread football to new territories?
FIFA is probably much the same as the International Olympic Committee in selling votes to the highest bidder. The media are no different when they lobby for the television rights. Member nations of these bodies know the systems and have always supported them, but gripe when things do not work in their favour.
England, now claiming to have gotten commitments from certain FIFA executives to vote in their favour, speaks of how they view democracy and the voting process. It is never about promoting real democracy and the voting process, but about corruptly lobbying for and securing interests behind the scenes then using the illusion of free and fair elections to ratify backdoor deals. When it works in their favour, they claim everything is free and fair and when it does not they whine about corruption and lack of integrity.
I am not interested in the British press calling FIFA and its executive corrupt unless they first train their poison pens on their corrupt institutions that are willing to engage the very people they call corrupt for their own ends. England has a long history of murderous conduct that is yet to be atoned for.
I guess in the mind of the British, corruption is to be defined in however they wish people see things at a point in time. But what should I expect from a colonial country that taught me in school that the infamous buccaneer Henry Morgan and the slaver and pirate Sir Francis Drake were our heroes?
Share your views here...
ADDENDUM: December 07, 2010
Thanks for the responses so far.
Beside one or two comments here, most of the responses are either defensive attacks or not thought out at all. Why is it difficult to grasp racism in any European institution unless you are uninformed or simply dishonest? Football has been plagued with racism within its administration and from its European fans.
The British claim that they got commitments from seven FIFA executives. How are they sure who gave them the two votes in a secret ballot? And why is Jack Warner the main target of their venom?
The U.S. may also be angry because they lost to Qatar but they know quite well that they got to host the World Cup in 1994 because of the same policy of opening up football to new regions that could afford to host it. There were critics of that U.S. campaign because many felt the U.S. was not serious about football and therefore not deserving of hosting it. Many were not interested in the view that by allowing the U.S. to host the World Cup it would open up that country to the sport (most importantly they have the finances). The critics did not care that the U.S. has a large immigrant population from countries where football is popular.
What is all this hullabaloo now about wanting FIFA to become more democratic? Since when do these British commentators and politicians care about democracy?
Many of these commentators had no problem with the voting process which brought the World Cup to Germany in 2006. They did not demonize Charles Dempsey who abstained from the final round of voting and thus handed the victory to Germany. Dempsey was mandated to vote for South Africa once England had dropped out of the ballot. I believe he took a bribe to favour Germany.
The British are using some of the same arguments that many have made in regards to the undemocratic United Nations where Britain is one of five permanent members that holds veto power over substantive resolutions. Why do they not support the call for the UN to be more transparent and democratic --- giving every nation a vote on substantive resolutions and removing the veto power those five members enjoy?
The reality is that many in Britain hold the view that Britain invented football and should, therefore, control how football is administered. They would prefer a UN-type governing body where certain European countries hold veto power. They have been opposed to the direction that FIFA has taken during and following the presidency of the Brazilian Joćo Havelange where there appeared to be a policy to take the World Cup to different regions.
There are many things wrong with FIFA, especially corruption, like other organizations with such power, but there seems to be a deliberate ploy to demonize non-European members. Even FIFA executives from Africa have expressed the view that they felt racism was behind some of the attacks on them.
Of course, it appears to some that it is only the views of Whites that count; all others, especially Africans, should know their place.
Share your views here...
Share your views here...