The (almost certainly horribly corrupt, but you shouldn't have needed to watch Panorama to tell you that) FIFA mandarins have spoken, and the big news, as far as UK media outlets are concerned anyway, is that England has been defeated by the evil Ruskies. You might find out in a post script that Qatar have got 2022.
The Wikileaks revelations, of more in another post hopefully, are perfectly timed for the inevitable outpouring of jingoistic fury over the choice of Russia - with its Mafia state having almost certainly, in the simple minds of certain sections of the English press, having done a cosy deal with the money-hungry FIFA bigwigs to screw gallant Albion out of her rightful prize. The fact that England's chances, according to analysis of the likely voting patterns prior to the decision, depended on whether it had sufficiently fawned enough over Jack Warner, a man who might actually be even more odious than Sepp Blatter himelf (and who quite readily plays the "racism" card" whenever anyone dares to point out just how venal and disgustng he is) will, of course, be quietly ignored.
However, putting the rights and wrongs of the whole grubbly process asde, what to think of the two winning candidates? Personally, I'm pretty excited, even if, for reasons of pure proximity, disappointed that England didn't get the nod. The fact that, barring when the Euro Champs were a shadow of their current selves back in the 1960s, the USSR/Russia has never held a major football competition is a major anomaly that will now be addressed. I have every confidence that the infrastructure will be put in place and the tournament will go well. While distances will be an issue, I'm encouraged that the venues will be limited to western Russia and, most importantly, that groups will be organised geographically. It's a pet theory of mine that one of the factors behind player lethargy in recent WCs is the distances players have to travel as group games flit all over the place. A return to the model seen for example, in Italia 90 or Euro 96, where two grounds close to each other hosted single groups will be a positive factor, I believe.
Heat will obviously be an issue, both in Russia and in Qatar. But SA in winter was supposed to be more comfortable, and it was the worst WC so far (although altitude and the farce of the windcatcher ball might also have been factors). Even Germany in 2006 was baking hot at times and, with the exception of Australia in 2022, no venue offered an option where heat might not cause a potential issue. Hard as it might be to remember as we shiver today, but England in late June can be unpleasantly sticky too.
Qatar is even more intriguing than Russia (and it's not often one can say that on any subject) as a choice. Yes, it's tiny, yes, it's got hardly any people, yes, it's not got much of a footballing heritage. But it's rolling in oil and gas money, it's got a can-do attitude and it will get the infrastructure right. The stadia will be top notch, there will be sufficient accomodation either within Qatar itself or its near neighbours and I expect most people will be pleasantly surprised by the end of the tourney. Moreover, time zone wise it possessed huge advantages over its competitors for those watching from home in Europe and the Americas.
While I'm sure FIFA didn't take it into consideration, I also believe awarding the WC to an Arab nation is a positive step. Those who try to stir up trouble within the islamic community like to highlight every perceived slight the West makes as if there is some concerted "new crusade". This decision makes a nonsense of that thesis (as indeed does the largely underexposed Wikileak that virtually every one of Iran's nervous [islamic] neighbours is desperate for someone to take out their burgeoning nuclear capacity before it's too late), and hopefully at least one mainstream commentator is prepared to say that.
So, all-in-all, I'm fairly satisfied that, while the process stinks, FIFA's ultimate decisions represent pretty good news for the football fan.
No comments:
Post a Comment