During the decision-making process, which took place at FIFA headquarters in Zurich on Monday, Chuck Blazer, the head of CONCACAF, proposed delaying an end to the World Cup rotation policy, and one can appreciate why.
Under the rotation system Asia in 2002, Europe in 2006, Africa in 2010 and South America in 2014 have all benefited from the policy. For Blazer and CONCACAF's member associations ending the rotation cycle one World Cup early smacks of inequity.
Introduced in 2000 as a means of spreading the football gospel on a geographic basis the rotation system soon ran into problems and altered FIFA to the reality that their altruistic scheme was sadly flawed.
Although there were no shortage of African candidates bidding for the World Cup in 2010 there was considerable concern about the ability of the bidders to deliver the necessary infrastructure for a successful event; many feel South Africa were awarded the event because they were effectively the only viable option, the best of a bad lot.
The problems raised by the rotation policy were brought into even sharper focus when CONMEBOL, the confederation representing South America could only muster one bidder for 2014; Brazil were today awarded the event essentially by default.
The column touches on some of the problems with rotation. Also, had it been allowed to stand for an extended period, there would have been a number of countries (South Africa, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina) that would have counted on having a World Cup in a regular, relatively frequent basis. They would face more competition this way (even if this competition may consist on a good part on throwing some pork to Sepp Blatter's friends. That's a topic for another day). While throwing the futbol periphery a bone in the shape of a WC may help promote the game, the fact is that most of the countries capable of hosting the event don't need such help. And giving a World Cup to an impoverished country in hopes of improving infrastructure is putting the cart before the horse.
With the end of rotation, Europe might end up hosting the bulk of World Cups. But is this a bad thing? It is the center of the futbol universe, with plenty of available infrastructure; and almost all of the star players are based there, making for less travel and, all else being equal, better quality of play. A return by joint bids might help: FIFA soured on them after Korea/Japan 2002, but UEFA is embracing them; the next to European Championships will be co-hosted by Austria/Switzerland and Poland/Ukraine, respectively. Also, a bunch of south-east Asian countries joined together in hosting that continent's tournament, although I don't have much of an idea of how that worked.
As for CONCACAF, both of their countries with the infrastructure capabilities have hosted World Cups in the recent past. In fact, a successful Mexican bid would be their third, an unprecedented amount. I wouldn't begrudge a World Cup there (it's relatively close to home), but that doesn't necessarily sound equitable.
No comments:
Post a Comment