This week provides a very interesting contrast between the governance structures of the IOC and FIFA. A few days ago we saw FIFA issue a summary of Michael Garcia’s report on the bidding process for the 2018 and 2022 World Cup only for Garcia to disavow the summary within an hour. The perception that FIFA is corrupt is not new, but it seems to be growing. Yet the prospects for real reform seem distant. Dan Roan of the BBC wrote a nice piece explaining why a boycott of FIFA by England, for example, would be unlikely.
Today the IOC issued a series of proposals for reform of the Olympic bidding process which I think will be widely welcomed. Potential bidders will now be invited to submit bids and given assistance along the way so that bidders have more confidence that they are on track. For the first time the IOC will contemplate cross border bids which should reduce the burden on any one city/country. The proposals also place much more emphasis on “sustainability” – which in this context means ensuring that construction is on a cost-effective scale, that any permanent facilities have a credible long-term use and that the use of low-cost temporary structures will be encouraged.
The IOC still has to approve the proposals, but the process is transparent and open, a sharp contrast with FIFA’s protest. The IOC has been moving along a path towards more openness and transparency ever since the scandal surrounding the Salt Lake City bid. Their efforts at internal reform are to be applauded.
Why does FIFA seem less amenable to such a process even though the level of scandal and corruption seems at least as great, if not greater? I think the answer is that the IOC has a lot more to lose. The Olympics are not only expensive to host, but most of the facilities do not have a credible alternative use- unlike football stadiums. By and large, football stadiums for World Cups are either there already or put to good use afterwards– even if the case of South Africa shows that this is not always true.
Moreover, most of the Olympic sports do not command that much interest. If the winter games lost the ice hockey (e.g. because the NHL develop a rival competition) or FIFA were to remove support for the Olympic Football competition for its own under-23 championship, then media interest might fall. Moreover, growing revenues tend to sustain unity, while stagnating revenues lead to disagreement and division.
Those who run FIFA have been able to maintain their extraordinary indifference to global disapproval of their antics precisely because they know we cannot do without the World Cup.