The Hypocrisy of the English FA

As the Garcia report found, England didn't show the integrity and morality they argued they had

In the aftermath of the Garcia report into what happened regarding the bids for the 2018 and 2022 World Cup’s there has been a significant outcry from many in English football and the media to abandon and depart FIFA and start up their own organisation. Former FA chief David Bernstein has said that England along with the rest of UEFA should boycott the 2018 World Cup as a form of protest to what has come out in the wake of the FIFA report. He believes that “drastic” action is required to rid the game of the power and influence of Sepp Blatter. And yet, doesn’t this all just smack of sour grapes and pettiness? What these comments do is isolate and ostracise English football from the national governing body, restricting any genuine influence and change. All it seems to do is portray England as sore losers and justifying the stereotype of the English being moaners.

At the 2014 World Cup FIFA’s President Sepp Blatter was roundly booed whenever his face appeared on a giant screen in Brasil. He is one of the most hated men in world football, despised by a football public who see in him the corrupt control of football’s governing body through a selfish and manipulative manner in which he retains control. 

Blatter became FIFA President in 1998 and has increased his hold on football’s governing body ever since. Any sense of this being a true democracy has become more laughable each ‘election’, where he faces no competition (and any that do stand up to him soon step aside when issues of corruption and bribery ‘surface’). The truth is he faces no true leadership rival which has made FIFA and its democratic approach shameful and embarrassing. 

Blatter is in fact one of the most powerful dictators in the world, operating a so called ‘non-profit organisation’ which in truth helps to merely line the pockets of those who surround themselves around the President. Blatter has been able to retain power due to his understanding of the power of money and the implications of corruption. He himself has never been found guilty of any misdemeanour's himself, which enables him to retain power. He acts in 'honesty', he stands for election in the proper way and has not been found red handed on any issues. He is one of the smartest dictators in the world, which is why his reign has lasted so long. 

Yet the tide is turning on his power. His allies for so many years have begun to turn against him or be found of corruption and bribery; the cases of Mohammed Bin Hammam, Jack Warner and Chuck Blazer in recent years have only sought to highlight the mess which FIFA has become under his leadership. Stories of corruption and bribery had become commonplace in the executive departments of FIFA’s headquarters.

Blatter’s power has depended on the greed of those around him, as this would only increase his hold and influence over those around him. As these men have fallen, so too has the visage of Blatter. We all know that FIFA is a corrupt organisation which has lined the pockets of those close to the company, and while the game will be for the better when Blatter and many at FIFA eventually depart, ushering in a new era for football’s governing body, the outcry from English football is what makes me more frustrated.

England's hypocrisy shames the nation

England championed itself as the nation of integrity, yet as the Garcia report found England weren't all too different to those they have been ‘fighting’ against. England has been left embarrassed by the findings, as they had professed they had lost due to issues of corruption of others. In fact, the truth is they were just as guilty as Russia and Qatar, courting bids and spending millions on trying to secure support. The problem was they weren’t as good as others, or perhaps it wasn’t ‘good’ but influential. You see English football is not respected as highly as those in the FA believe it is.

Bernstein has called Fifa a "totalitarian" set-up that reminds him of "the old Soviet empire". He believes that the credibility of football is "suffering enormously" under the current Fifa regime. He also has said that choosing Qatar to host the 2022 World Cup was "one of the most ludicrous decisions in the history of sport". His solution is for Europe to boycott the 2018 World Cup as a form of protest against what FIFA stand for and their actions these past decades. He believes Europe needs to take a stand. 

Others have agreed with him, believing a ‘break-away’ group should leave FIFA and create their own organisation. It is all very noble and moral from the English, as always they seek to stand up for the good and morality of the game. And yet a desire to boycott the 2018 World Cup looks nothing more than sour grapes for losing the bid to Russia. Yes I am sure that Putin, Abramovich and other oligarchs used their extensive wealth and influence to manipulate the votes and win the World Cup. Yet England have been proven to have attempted to manipulate the votes also through lavish parties and gifts. The problem was they couldn’t compete with Russia. Which is they lost the vote. 

It may also have something to do with the way England and English football’s bodies are regarded globally. This is a fundamental issue which is making England isolated and what makes the ideas of break-away’s and boycotts more petty and to be honest, pathetic. England is ridiculed across much of the footballing world for its wish to educate the rest of the world about what is ‘right’. As a nation we seemingly believe that we are police to the global game, we believe we set the tone in terms of morality and ethics. The problem is, people find what we say often insulting and condescending. 

Who are we to tell others how to manage their game? Because we ‘invented’ the game? Or because we continue to hold on to our colonial beliefs that somehow we rule the world? We have become a laughing stock to others and our cries of foul play and cheating only further the discontent against English football. 

The truth is we are hypocrites. Look at our Premier League as the most glaring of our hypocrisy. The FA gave its powers away, allowed the league to grow without seemingly any policing at all. It has now become a multi-billion pound beast which has some of the highest percentages of foreign players and coaches earning lucrative wages. Is this a league which can be regarded as moral and ethical? And what about the ownership situation? Other leagues have the majority owned by the fans, not the Premier League. A nation who argues against the ‘dictatorship’ of Sepp Blatter make themselves hypocrites for opening their institutions to the whim of billionaires who feed on the wealth and power which the Premier League provides. 

This 'model' has not benefited the naitonal team or the fans either. England have got progressively worse this past 15 years and a forever increasing cost for the fans in terms of tickets and merchandise has rendered them little more than consumers with little or no influence over their clubs? Is this an example of fairness, morality and development? 

English football looks like a hypocrisy because it is one. It acts the victim when things go against it, it blames others for its failings, yet it is just as guilty as those it is blaming. The reason we hear such indignation is because we lost. Had England won the 2018 tournament we know these calls wouldn’t be coming. It is bitterness which only seeks to increase the feeling of dislike which comes from FIFA and nations across the world towards English football. 

Now had Bernstein or others called for the movement of the Russian World Cup based on political reasons for what Putin is doing in Ukraine then there is an argument to be had there, but they are not. They point their fingers at the corruption of FIFA and merely only isolate and make themselves look like bitter hypocrites. The truth is England’s influence is not as strong as they believe it is, there will be few, if any who would join a boycott or break-away from FIFA. The World Cup is lucrative business for nations. 

Transparency and diplomacy are key

No, what is required are people like David Gill at the UEFA Executive Committee who can seek to improve the transparency of the European game, while seeking to change the way FIFA is ran along with the support of UEFA President Michel Platini. A boycott would seek only to damage relations and tie between governing bodies, what is needed is diplomatic relations which improve standards. 

The tide is turning against Blatter and as his allies slowly move away, his reign is coming to an end. Platini is waiting for his time to move into Blatter’s seat, and hopefully lead the next era of football with integrity and transparency. Yet he knows the time is not now, patience is the key. He plays the political game smartly, unlike those across English football whose actions seek only to alienate and embarrass our nation. 

We lost the World Cup ‘fairly’ in terms of the rules of engagement for that type of bidding war. Winning that bid was unlikely anyway, even if David Beckham was leading our celebrity show. Personally I would have liked to see the £20m invested in that bid, along with the £1billion spent on Wembley to have gone into the national game at grassroots and youth level to invest in the foundation. Yet our FA have more commercial and business interests at play when it comes to where the money goes, which is why their hypocrisy towards FIFA makes me both smile and feel frustrated when they lament others for actions they are guilty of themselves.

The Whitehouse Address @The_W_Address