US after Fifa’s ‘power’
Published:
Sunday, March 31, 2013
I would like to elaborate on why the US might want to gain prominence in Fifa’s management. When I talk of “the US” I mean its corporate interest.
A young American Grant Wahl, offered himself at FIFA’s presidential elections. Fifa has an annual turnover of billions. Russia and Qatar are the hosts of World cup 2018 and 2022 respectively. The pundits felt that the US, Australia, Japan and South Korea all had, without exception, a better claim than the eventual victors.
Wahl who graduated in politics from Princeton, writes for Sports Illustrated, a subsidiary of Time Warner, the second largest media corporation in the world. A reputable and senior sports writer wants to preside over world football? If that is not a conflict of interest I don’t know what is.
His boss Tim Leyden was criticised for a cynical story that tarnished Notre Dame in the US. What tremendous power would Wahl wield as a skillful writer who oversees all of the world’s football teams! Gone would be the days of one country one vote and in would come the US veto!
Fifa’s development plan 2011-2014 involved youth and grassroots activities. US$14 million was allocated for that. With the US running Fifa, how much of that would go to poor developing countries? You think Trinidad could ever in life host another under-17 World tournament or a woman’s tournament? They budgeted US$36 million for developing less privileged associations.
The one good thing that the US can bring to Fifa politics is that there would no longer be “bribes”. They would be called “lobbies” and legitimised.
Steve Smith,
via e-mail
