SPORTS : TRANSPARENCY

Fear of FIFA
FIFA needs to democratise itself

This FIFA World Cup should have come as a slap to all those skeptics who thought that an erstwhile apartheid-loving nation won’t be able to pull off this mega sporting event well. Not only did South Africa pull off the game well but it also raised the global standards when it comes to hosting a mega sporting event like FIFA. South Africa took care of every possible measure in order to squeeze maximum economies out of this gaming event. From refurbishing and building new infrastructure to vacating slums – almost all attributes under the sun were taken care of to make sure that the dividends of the game flow well even after the World Cup got over. But then, amidst all these romantic developments, it was someone else who ran away with big money, leaving pittance for the host country. The figures will prove that – while FIFA made a whopping $3.2 billion as profit, it gave a trifle $80 million to the South African government, and that too because the amount was a guarantee.FIFA is more than a century old organisation. Talking about big moolah, FIFA on an average generate revenues that is well above $1 billion per year and more than $4 billion in the World Cup year. A brief research would be enough to unearth the fact that most of revenues come from television and marketing rights, which are under direct control of FIFA. So much so that FIFA charges rent from the host country and does not pay taxes for revenues earned as it insists on having a ‘Diplomatic status’ (amendments allowing FIFA's activities as 'diplomatic' via the Revenues Law Amendment Act 20 of 2006, guaranteeing 17 provisions granting 'supportive financial environment' as well as various other free services, have been passed). Unlike the International Cricket Council (ICC), where the tenure of the President lasts on an average for 2.5 years, FIFA has no term limits (tenures average over 13 years). Moreover, FIFA allots tourism rights to its agent, Switzerland-based Match AG (the company is said to have family connections with heads of the FIFA body), without any bidding process. Match AG is reported to practice marking up of services charges and licensing fee and surcharge. Match AG is the official accommodation provider since the last six World Cups. All in all, FIFA retains on an average 95 per cent of total profits. In March this year, a UN human rights expert, Raquel Rolnik, said FIFA ignored clauses on adequate housing in the bid proposals and commented that the organisation should be "more transparent." In July, 2010, Transparency International pin-pointed FIFA being involved in multimillion dollar illegal transactions on account of broadcasting and TV rights. As per a recent article published in Forbes, "Executive power has remained with the president and his unaccountable cabinet of highly paid advisors, despite the 24-strong executive committee drawn from FIFA's member associations."FIFA needs to understand that World Cup – or for that matter soccer – is not just a mega sporting event but a game that unites the world. History is testimony that the game played a major role in bridging the racial divide. FIFA should not dent a host country's development activities and burden them with exorbitant costs, especially in developing economies. Instead of asking countries to build new stadiums and infrastructure on their own cost, FIFA should productively engage member countries to invest in such capital expenditure in the host countries. Imagine the camaraderie that can be generated within even enemy countries by such a model through the world's greatest event.