FFA’s World Cup bid lacks transparency

Roar Pro

By Tifosi , 8 Dec 2009 The Crowd is a Roar Pro

Tagged:: 2018 FIFA World Cup, 2022 FIFA World Cup, FFA, football, World Football

Related coverage

FIFA President Sepp Blatter, left, talks with Football Australia chairman Frank Lowy as they arrive at the opening ceremony for the 58th FIFA congress in Sydney, Thursday, May 29, 2008. AP Photo/Mark Baker

The FFA’s bid to host the 2018/2022 FIFA World Cup reminds me of the current debate on the Emission Trading Scheme here in Australia. Both sound great in theory, but the public don’t understand the details of what it involves.

The public want to know, in simple English, what it means.

I love football, and always will, but I have been sceptical of Australia’s bid for the 2018/2022 World Cup.

I have advocated here on The Roar, once about a year ago and recently in September, that I believe that Australia is better suited to hosting the AFC Asian Cup rather than the FIFA World Cup.

I won’t go through why again, but you can read my thoughts here and here.

It seems the comments from the AFL and MCG about the lack of detail of what is actually required has struck some kind of nerve. Whilst the AFL has overreacted, the truth is that there is some merit to to their concern.

My concern about the Australian bid has been the lack of detail pertaining to the stadia situation. It has bothered me from day one. Australia lacks suitable stadia for football, rugby, and league in AFL dominated states.

I became really concerned when I received an email from the bid committee asking for help in finding the 64 training venues required.

That set off alarm bells.

The bid is doing a wonderful job of networking around the world, making the right connections, and meeting the right people. But I still can’t see how we can win the bid without knowing what stadia we will be presenting.

Have a look at the official Australian bid website.

On it you will read about how great Australia is, how great the people are, how experienced we are at hosting major events, and what tremendous sporting facilities we have. All true, no doubt.

However, there is no mention whatsoever of what cities are actually bidding and what stadia those cities are actually offering.

Or how they will be paid for if they need upgrading.

The Americans, our main competitors for 2022, on the other hand, let you know exactly what they offer in terms of stadia and I can assure you it far surpasses what we offer.

Also, the news that the MCG must now undergo some sort of rectangular configuration is, to me, an example of what the FFA don’t let the public know.

Does this imply that other oval grounds being considered would need the same type of rectangular configuration? Who knows.

And that’s the problem.

So please FFA, let us know what is happening with this bid. After all, it’s the taxpayers that are bankrolling it.

Only when the facts are out on the table can people decide if the World Cup is indeed winnable, because at the moment its certainly doesn’t look that way.

Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.

The Crowd Says (63) | Page 1 of Comments

rugbyfuture said | December 8th 2009 @ 1:58am | Report comment

interesting thoughts, however i would like the codes to cooperate with the FFA, I think there is much space in the australian soccer/football world to facilitate a grade soccer and i think the forld cup could help it along, thats hard for me to say as a rugby man too.

Reply
Gatto Nero said | December 8th 2009 @ 4:58am | Report comment

Good questions, and well founded. There isn’t enough debate about the merits and possible negative implications of hosting the Cup. Anybody who questions whether it is in the public good is shouted down as being anti-soccer, or anti-Australian. We need to get beyond our cultural cringe and look at the likely costs of holding the event – social as well as economic – and ask whether it is something that deserves support or not. At the moment, I am leaning toward the latter.

Reply
- albe said | December 8th 2009 @ 5:27pm | Report comment
  
  the negatives are usually put forward by people who don’t even like ‘boring soccer’ so don’t be surprised that those views are disregarded. The economic costs are far outweighed by the positives. More so than any other sporting event this country has all ready sunk millions into.
  
  we’ll end up hosting the Asia Cup in 2015 anyway. There’s no genuine world football fan who could argue that hosting the WC finals would be bad.
  
  Reply
  - AndyS said | December 8th 2009 @ 5:43pm | Report comment
    
    Perhaps, but there are probably genuine baseball fans that would love nothing more than to host the World Series. Doesn’t mean it would be a good idea or is ever likely to happen.
    
    Reply
    - albe said | December 8th 2009 @ 5:55pm | Report comment
      
      maybe if Australia ever enters a team in the MLB world series we’ll have a chance
      
      Reply
Beast-A-Tron said | December 8th 2009 @ 6:12am | Report comment

With regards to the WC and ETS: One involves flushing national dignity down the toilet in subservience to a corrupt, foreign unelected autocracy, whilst the other involves flushing national sovereignty down the toilet in subservience to another corrupt, foreign unelected autocracy.

Both processes are indeed lacking transparency and imploring the public to ‘trust us’. Both have avoided serious debate on the economic impact they will create. ‘For the greater good’ we are told and fortunately the good folk at FFA and Federal Labor have not burdened us with facts and other intricacies which are probably too complicated for us simpletons to understand.

The similarities speaks volumes and its a shame you didn’t further elaborate on this comparison.

Reply
- Kurt said | December 8th 2009 @ 6:14am | Report comment
  
  “With regards to the WC and ETS: One involves flushing national dignity down the toilet in subservience to a corrupt, foreign unelected autocracy, whilst the other involves flushing national sovereignty down the toilet in subservience to another corrupt, foreign unelected autocracy/”
  
  Quite possibly comment of the year.
  
  Reply
Punter said | December 8th 2009 @ 6:18am | Report comment

The Anti-soccer people are up early today or up later depending on where thay are….

Reply
Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 6:22am | Report comment

Tifosi
Terrific, objective article.

Whichever way you look at it – the FFA and Buckley have lied at every step of the way.

Reply
- Tom said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:41am | Report comment
  
  One of those great objective articles that happens to reinforce your own subjective view, Pip?
  
  Reply
Redb said | December 8th 2009 @ 6:46am | Report comment

Good article Tifosi.

The lack of transparency and communication is at the core of the much of the angst.

At the end of the day people have to accept that Australia with its football code dichotomy is not actually suited to host the World Cup.

Redb

Reply
- Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 6:54am | Report comment
  
  Also, the modus operandi of FIFA is probably better suited to countries with a governance structure that share many cultural similaraities, for example, Qatar.
  
  Reply
Fliss said | December 8th 2009 @ 7:45am | Report comment

I’ve seen plenty of reports on cities and stadia but maybe they haven’t told anyone yet because they don’t need to yet. Basic communications – don’t give up information until you want to or have to.

And they didn’t e-mail you asking for your “help” in finding 64 training venues. It was part of an e-mail to signed-up supporters offering a prize. I’m sure they don’t need your help. Australia has plenty of training grounds.

Reply
- Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 7:50am | Report comment
  
  Then the FFA should reap the harvest it sows – and deservedly so.
  
  AT the end of the day – they just didn’t have the balls to come out and say, yes, the AFL season can’t operate – bad luck!
  
  Reply
AndyRoo said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:35am | Report comment

Did I miss the part where people have been asked to sign a blank piece of paper?

Just checked my calander and it’s still 2009 not 2022. Buckley can’t go around and say wether Docklands will be required because the state governments and federal governments are still deciding on their contributions.

Reply
Con Stamocostas said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:39am | Report comment

” I love football but I don’t want a world cup in my own country”

“Also climate change is not real”

Are you a member of the Liberal party and an AFL administrator?

Reply
- Compensation = $1 billion + said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:02am | Report comment
  
  Con, it is well known that the AFL administration is close to the Labour side of politics. The amount of head-kicking they suffered at the hands of the Liberal Party in relation to the completely blown out of proportion stink about out of competition drug testing testifies to this.
  
  That was a joke – so is this.
  
  Reply
Hank said | December 8th 2009 @ 9:42am | Report comment

Umm the details haven’t been made available because they haven’t even been worked out yet – the bid book isn’t due for a while. The AFL has done a great job playing the alarmist role. This MCG reconfiguration issue is only an option that the FFA is contemplating, and of course they have to work with a number of stakeholders before they can actually decide on which apporach to take. Since when has soccer ever been able to do what they want in this country? It’s not going to start now. So when the FFA actually decides on what they would like to do, then you’ll probably hear from them. Until then, people should stop jumping the gun.

Reply
- Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 9:52am | Report comment
  
  But why hasn’t that option been made public then?
  
  Who is paying for the option?
  
  Taxpayer picks up the bill – FIFA pockets the economic rent.
  
  Reply