If there's one quote from the film Wall Street that we all remember it's from the Gekko himself. "Greed is good." It's the same point made in probably my favourite film of all time, The Other Guys. The difference is, hearing Steve Coogan tell a conference full of wanabee businessmen that he lives for excess doesn't have quite the same impact as Oliver Stone's lead character who is meant to symbolise everything that is wrong with the capitalist system.
Another quote which came to mind recently was: "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." The reason it came to mind was from watching the Euro 2016 qualifying draw last week. In fact, all I saw was 20 seconds and coincidentally that happened to be the part where Uefa's new 'week of football' concept was being spelt out. This takes the sensible solution of playing international matches on a Friday and Tuesday and changing it so that matches now take place every day from Thursday to Tuesday.
So what were the reasons behind this change? The clue was in a comment made by Uefa General Secretary Gianni Infantino. "Supporters will get the chance to attend and watch more national team matches than ever before. Broadcasters will get more games and more appointments to view. National associations will get a consistent schedule and stable revenue."
Realistically, I should have kept in the word 'broadcasters' and removed the rest. This moves does nothing for supporters or national associations. Roy Hodgson has already made the point that playing on a Thursday will hamper his preparations with his best players likely to be in action on the Sunday before and possibly even the Sunday after.
This suggestion, remember, comes from a body who decided the Europa League should start in June and matches played on Thursdays. It's so bad that teams actively try and avoid it. It's like Uefa have been watching The Producers and are actually trying to make their competition a flop.
Of course, Uefa insist that they are changing the schedule to make international football more appealing, but if we are to take that suggestion seriously then why have they done their best to ruin the Euros, a competition which has worked so well in the past. By increasing the number of teams who qualify from 16 to 24 they have immediately saturated the quality and made the qualifying process something of a farce. It couldn't be because Michel Platini wants to sure up the European votes for a potential run as Fifa President could it?
He'd fit in there brilliantly. This is an organisation that handed out the World Cup to Russia - where clubs think nothing of racially abusing their own players - and Qatar, which has no footballing pedigree whatsoever. And both countries' stance on homosexuality looks as credible as the Royal and Ancient's policy to hand the Open to men only clubs.
Platini - who has admitted to voting for Qatar - had to deny anything sinister in a meeting with then French President Nicolas Sarkozy, the crown prince of Qatar and a representative of the investment fund which owned Paris Saint-Germain. This meeting at the Elysée Palace took place 10 days before the World Cup.
There is no evidence that Platini did anything wrong, but he admits that pressure was put on him by Sarkozy to vote for Qatar and it was only the following year that an investment arm of the Qatar government bought PSG, the club who Sarkozy supports. Either way, holding such a meeting so close to the vote was a poor show of judgement.
The promises of air-conditioned stadiums never materialised and now the World Cup will be held in the winter. The people who make these decisions, remember, are meant to be the best in their field.
Qatar hit the news for the treatment of their workers, but still Fifa don't care. 185 Nepalese workers died in 2013, making the total 382 over two years. These labourers are forced to work for 12 hours a day to fulfil the wishes of filthy rich men and money-hungry executives. And it's not like you work up much of a sweat in Qatar...
So what about Russia, hosts of the 2018 World Cup? In the 2013 edition of the democracy ranking by the website of the same name, Russia came 95 out of 115 countries. This put them one place below Uganda who have since banned homosexuality.
True, democracy and intolerance are not the same, but it doesn't say much for Russia who are following Uganda's lead with their own - slightly watered-down - bill which caused huge headlines in the build-up to the Winter Olympics and led to suggestions of a boycott.
According to Freedom House, on a scale of 1-7 for freedom (with 7 being the worst), Russia's score is 5.5. Ever the diplomat, President Vladimir Putin has tried to defuse criticism of his country by releasing and pardoning businessman Mikhail Khodorkovsky and two Pussy Riot performers, but his recent belligerence surrounding Crimea has revealed his true colours.
Despite impersonating a corrupt third-world country, Russia have been awarded a World Cup, an Olympics and a grand-prix. The Sochi Games cost $50billion, compared to the $7billion spent in Vancouver four years earlier. To put that into context, London 2012 cost £9billion (note the change in currency).
Unsurprisingly, Putin's cronies did well from the contracts handed out for the games.
Russia, remember, support those bastions of liberality Iran and Syria. It's no surprise that an organisation like Fifa - which has seen most of its main executives quit over corruption scandals - saw it is an ideal host for a World Cup. It is even less surprising that its president was pictured warmly greeting Robert Mugabe. It's just hard not to feel sick when you consider this disgusting cycle. And good luck breaking it, because the levels of corruption and power-wielding are so ingrained and so many countries are not willing to risk be ostracised, that nothing will ever change.
Continuing with the Olympics, it's easy to see how money is corrupting this supposedly Corinthian event. Sponsorship now dictates everything and even the world's most prominent athletic event can shamelessly brand Coca-Cola and McDonalds, with the latter even getting a store inside London's Olympic stadium.
Of course, consumers have a free choice. But just as sport teams have no shame in promoting highly criticised pay day loan companies or smoking and drinking brands, would it not be worth the Olympics to shun unhealthy products even if it would hit their pockets?
No tournament highlights the selling of the soul more than cricket's Indian Premier League where fielders take a Karbonn Kamal catch and batsmen hit a DLF maximum. It is no surprise that the IPL and it's equivalent tournament in Bangladesh have been riddled with corruption. In the case of the IPL, the spectre of back-handed player payments could end a number of careers both in the Indian team and cricket board should the truth not be smothered as it is threatened to be at the moment.
Cricket, lest we not forget, has undergone momentous changes with the the Indian, Australian and English boards trying to bully the other nations into ceding complete power into their hands. India, who almost single-handedly bankroll the sport, have no shame in manipulating some of the poorer Test-playing countries and have been allowed to act in brazen fashion by its Ashes allies.
The power of money is not just an international matter but one which can be felt closer to home. Whether it be Arsenal charging obscene amounts for a match, a chicken-owning company trashing the name of an established Premier League outfit, or a series of showmen running their club into the ground, it appears that money does talk.
Sport has undoubtedly seen many improvements from the influx of big money, but it has sold its soul. We watch sport for the event itself, but the surrounding circus is now so inseparable from the main act that its rare we can enjoy the spectacle on its own.
The answer, in my eyes, is to vote for our leaders. Let's mirror the Electoral College system in America where each state allocates the share of their votes with the final totals added up to select a winner. That way, representatives of official supporters' clubs around the world could decide who their country vote for rather than a faceless suit.
Perhaps those brown envelopes which turn up at election time would be much harder to distribute to millions of people rather than those unaccountable executives.
And maybe the next World Cups will go to countries who have more than just a limitless cheque book.
No comments:
Post a Comment