What this this tells me is that Australia is too small in a geo-political sense to have any influence in the Machiavellian, power and money-obsessed of football politics. This is a fatal flaw to Australia’s hopes of ever exercising any influence or power in world football. This flaw is exacerbated by the fact that we are part of the English-speaking world bloc.
FIFA, along with the United Nations and virtually all the other branches (tentacles?) of its organisation like UNESCO and the IOC among other institutions, is essentially an anti-English-speaking power bloc. For us, brought up in the traditions of English and American history, the English-speaking tradition is one that has civilised great chunks of the globe. But for those being civilised, the process was more akin to colonialism and exploitation than any high-minded venture intended to improve the lot of those peoples involved in this history.
The IOC vote to give an Olympic Games to Brazil rather than the United States, and now FIFA’s decision to give the World Cup tournament to Russia, that inhospitable nation, and to Qatar, which will have to build stadiums underground to allow spectators and players some relief from the searing heat, represent the hostility to the English-speaking giants like the US and the UK at its most virulent.
These votes, like similar votes in the UN, represent the revenge of the colonised and the marginalised.
They also represent the reality of the politics where so-called third world countries, because of their numbers and their groupings, can influence the outcome of most votes at international gatherings.
More specifically regarding the Australian bid, it was based on a false argument. That argument was that Australia was part of Asia. Asia is the growing powerhouse of world trade and development. Therefore, if FIFA supported the Australian bid, it was giving itself a ride on the wave of the future.
When I was at school (admittedly too many decades ago to bear remembering) we were taught about Asia Minor, an area that embraces Turkey, the Middle East and the Gulf States (which were tiny fishing ports at that time). There is nothing minor about this region now. It is an economic powerhouse and a political powder keg.
FIFA likes to see itself as a sporting and more effective version of the UN. Perhaps the Nobel Peace Prize is a better analogy. The World Cup was given to South Africa this year as a mark of that nation’s emergence (more theoretical than actual) as a rainbow coalition community.
The politics behind Russia winning the hosting rights to World Cup 2018 is that this country is not England.
Qatar is the first Muslim country to be given a global event. This is a hugely symbolic/political gesture on the part of FIFA. It elevates FIFA to a level of international peace-making and reconciliation (hopefully) that has been beyond the UN and the great powers. As George Orwell pointed out, sport is war by other methods. There are commentators who are making the case a Qatar World Cup will be an effective weapon against Al-Qaeda and the worst excesses of Islamic darkness.
Tunku Varadarajan, writing for The Beast, describes FIFA’s decision as ‘transformative, electrifying’ and describes the tournaments of 2018 and 2022 as ‘revolutionary World Cups.’ He points out, too, that ‘if Israel Qatar will not be able to deny it the right to play, for the first time, on Arab soil. Think of that.’
In the light of these huge geo-political considerations involved with Qatar, particularly, winning the World Cup 2022 hosting rights, it is probably remarkable that insignificant Australia got even one vote.
Spiro Zavos predicted Qatar would win the 2022 World Cup hosting vote in June 2010.
TCunbeliever
Roar Guru
That is a good point..
Brian
Guest
"The World Cup was given to South Africa this year as a mark of that nation’s emergence (more theoretical than actual) as a rainbow coalition community." Twaddle. The Cup was awarded to South Africa based on an undertaking to deliver a commercially successful tournament. The fact that SA 2010 was, for FIFA, the most profitable World Cup in history was simply the honouring of that promise.
Black Diamonds
Guest
Well exactly - I think you've hit the nail on the head their mate. It was a taxpayer funded bid, and as such - taxpayers, represented by the Fed Govt., had to have input into the bid as a result. It is also why we couldn't do any discreet "bribery" of exco members - which we clearly needed to do - in one way or another. Who's fault is that? Well, you'd have to sheet it back to FFA and its chairman. If he'd been able to fund the bid out of his own pocket - but get the Govt. guarantees on stadia and other infrastructure - then he could have splashed the cash around the place and would have been in a much much much better position to land the bid by doing the things he needed to. Clearly, Lowy didn't want to dip into his own pockets to any great degree and this strategy has come back to bite us all on the butt.
TCunbeliever
Roar Guru
I agree It would have been the first FIFA WC in Australia had we won, but it is also the first time the FIFA WC will be in Russia and the middle East. But I disagree that the reason we lost was because of the lack of interest in the code - simply because there are less people here than in Russia or the Middle East.
TCunbeliever
Roar Guru
Based on that - the Wallabies are far far far ahead of the Socceroos. Does this make Union Australia's national sport?
TCunbeliever
Roar Guru
Australia hasn't qualified for the last two FIFA World Cups because of interest. it was because through some obscure process they were deemed to have qualified.. I can't say what that process was, but it had nothing to do with the nation's interest in the sport. And when they qualify again, the interest will increase again. Australians always like to watch their nation's team to well - regardless of what the sport is!
Black Diamonds
Guest
Except 2 out of 5 of the last World Cups have been held in English speaking countries. 2/5. 1994 - USA 2010 - South Africa Its not the speaking English that's the problem - that is a misnomer. Jack Warner of CONCACAF speaks English, but I'd hardly say he's one of those promoting the likes of Australia, England and the USA too vigorously in international fora.
ItsCalledFootball
Roar Guru
Football would have to be an Australian national sport - the Socceroos are one of the most recognised national teams in the country [and the world]. Its also the most popular sport in the country to play. Even if they don't watch an A-League game the majority of Australians know what football [soccer] is.
Midfielder
Guest
Did you hear the joke about the FIFA official ... errrrr sorry you have..
mahony
Guest
I was there 2 years ago and loved it. If I can't amke Brazil 2014 - Russia 2018 it will be for sure....
mahony
Guest
That was a great read! I doubt his salary figures - but I take his point!
mahony
Guest
Lol! That has helped a little......
mahony
Guest
That is just silly. Lets reform the WC bidding process, but beyond that FIF and football progress go hand in hand. We pulled out once before and we are still trying to catch up as a result. I feel your frustration though.
mahony
Guest
Time did tell - go see Mark Arbib's comments about the feds understanding football, supporting it into the fute etc.... I would be interested in your responce? The strategic value o football is no longer an insiders idea - government is onto it and they just joined the 20th century as a result.
NF
Guest
I see nothing wrong with that Lazza people have different tastes you can't expect everyone to follow one sport only it's just not possible here in Australia with the variety avaliable.
True Tah
Guest
Rob the English didnt really change much in India at all, and I would suspect that life continued for perhaps 85-90% of the population as it always had...India had a long tradition of being overrun by foreign powers. It would be incorrect to say that "centuries of cultural traidtion" was crushed. They still have their various religions, languages and cultural practices. The English did try to stamp out things like the thuggee cult, infantcide and widow burning - maybe these are the cultural traditions you are referring to? I agree that England was only after exploiting the colonies, but they were far from alone, Portugal, Belgium, France, Spain, Germany all did things as bad or worse as the English.
Lazza
Guest
It's great that half the country wouldn't be able to name an AFL/NRL/RU player? It's great that we can't get together and banter about a sport that we all follow. I can go on the web and everyone around the world knows Harry Kewel or Tim Cahill but half my own country wouldn't know any players from my AFL team. How lucky we are.
Lazza
Guest
Perhaps FIFA just wanted to spread the game - the first in eastern Europe and the first in the Middle East. England and the USA have already hosted the event and most Australians don't want the competition to their niche codes here. Only England out of the English speaking nations is passionate about Football so why would they care about the rest?
NF
Guest
Lazza I doubt that football will become a truly national sport due to the variety of the sporting landscape with NRL,AFL, and RU also sharing the marketshare. There be no truly dominant sport that's for sure since not all Australians follow football,AFL,NRL, and RU and I prefer it that way I rather have a diversified sporting landscape than a one-sport dominated one.
Lazza
Guest
You're right, Australians will continue to follow the AFL OR the NRL OR RU. What we won't have is a football code that ALL Australians can follow. Perhaps in a generation or two Football will fill that role since it's the only one with the potential to be a truly national sport.