With 10 days to go to the vote for the 2023 World Cup, we unpack what role the technical evaluation has, the politics at play and what it could mean for the joint Australia/New Zealand bid.
The bid evaluation report issued by FIFA last week gives great reason for optimism for the combined Australia/New Zealand bid, as we wrote here and in the editorial for the June edition of PLAY ON e-magazine. We also recommended that New Zealand Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, be front-and-centre of the final pitch to voters.
The joint bid scored the highest in the technical evaluation of 4.1 (from 5), against Japan on 3.9 and Colombia on 2.8.
Brazil withdrew its bid earlier in the week because, according to FIFA sources, they were quietly informed that the technical evaluation didn’t even garner a ‘pass’ mark of 2.0. This was because of the lack of government support for the bid – not surprising in the current economic climate facing Brazil and the horrendous toll that coronavirus is taking on her people and the economy.
So why is the Australia/New Zealand bid rated the best from a technical perspective? What could get in the way? Where will the votes come from?
Australia/New Zealand bid
It is clear that those putting the bid together have taken a key lesson out of the 2022 World Cup bid via a manoeuvre I revealed for the first time in my book, Whatever It Takes – the Inside Story of the FIFA Way, and that is they’ve worked to ensure the joint bid is sound commercially for FIFA.
Putting aside the corruption on a person-to-person level (in which Australia was also involved), the weakness in Australia’s bid for 2022 was that it was not as lucrative for FIFA compared with other bidders.
As I noted in my book, the then CEO of FIFA, Jerome Valcke, told us this privately in July 2009 – 18 months ahead of the vote – after having earlier informed all bidders that the World Cup tournament needed to make enough money to sustain all FIFA operations for four years.
The FFA ‘A team’ at the time decided to deal with this by commissioning yet another report from PwC highlighting the growth of football fans and potential broadcast revenue from Asia which, of course, was relevant to all Asian bidders. It was a wholly inadequate response, especially as Qatar dealt with it by having BeIn Sports offer a bonus ‘production contribution’ to FIFA of USD$100 million if Qatar won the vote, a mere few weeks before the vote – also revealed for the first time in my book. It was the first time such a ‘production contribution’ had been made.
Of course, the rest is history. Qatar won the vote, an outcome with which FIFA corporately was happy because they had an extra USD$100 million in the bank.
A few years later, two US networks (NBC and Rupert Murdoch’s FOX) paid even more than USD$100 million each to FIFA to contribute a ‘production contribution’ to FIFA for the 2026 tournament, assisted by additional contributions also from Canadian and Mexican broadcasters. (Not to mention the US President tweeting a threat to those who didn't vote for the tri-nation bid for 2026!).
What the Australian state and federal and New Zealand governments have now done is to promise a contribution of up to USD$77 million (~AUD$112) if the 2023 bid is successful.
The difference between what BeIn Sports, FOX and Telemundo did and what the Morrison and Ardern governments have done is that it is known before the vote and is incorporated as part of the technical evaluation.
As I have made clear on many occasions, there is nothing wrong with FIFA wanting to maximise its revenue from its major events; this just needs to be transparent and incorporated into the bid criteria. It wasn’t for 2018, 2022 or 2026 (men’s tournaments).
I am pleased that it is for 2023 and I, along with my fellow co-founders of the former campaign group #NewFIFANow, deserve recognition for identifying the need for and advocating for this change, years before the May 2015 FIFA arrests. I also identified this as an essential requirement to FIFA’s ‘busted flush’ internal investigation headed by Michael Garcia from 2012-2014.
While neither the Australian and New Zealand governments nor the FFA have announced their financial contribution formally, FIFA’s technical evaluation has made it transparent that (a) the promise has been made, and (b) it is a positive factor in the Australia/New Zealand bid’s favour.
The Japanese Government has given no such undertaking. The evaluation report notes that:
“No government contributions or subsidies were confirmed by the bidder, which has reduced the bid’s financial position, although the Japan Football Association will be able to apply for government funding if the bid is successful.”
Colombia’s bid “presents a commercial risk”, according to the report.
The fact that FIFA’s costs will be greater in 2023, in large part due to increased prize money for the tournament, makes it even more important that the women’s event is a stand-alone financial success and commercially viable for FIFA, especially after havng dipped into their reserves this year to help football associations around the world due to the coronavirus shutdown.
This assessment from the technical evaluation team is the biggest pointer in favour of the joint Australia/New Zealand bid.
While FIFA’s handling of the bid has improved compared with 2018/2022 and 2026 bid processes, there is still room for further improvement in the bidding processes, but we’ll leave that for another day.
Australian captain, Sam Kerr
Football politics
What hasn’t changed of course, and it is the point I and others have made repeatedly, is the murky nature of football politics and the culture of FIFA. In this regard, the vote on 25 June – which will be disclosed and accountable – is a big test for the 37 members of the FIFA Council, starting at the top with the FIFA President Gianni Infantino.
Colombia
Infantino’s numbers man in South America for the 2016 Presidential election was none other than the President of the Colombia FA, Ramon Jesurun.
Infantino’s hand-picked Chairman of the Investigatory Chamber of the FIFA Ethics Committee is Maria Claudia Rojas of Colombia, who was introduced to Infantino by Jesurun. She is an eminent jurist in her country, but with a focus on tax law, humanitarian law, bioethics and national defence – not criminal or financial investigations. Rojas’ appointment was criticised by the Council of Europe because of this, as well as her lack of English or French language skills which are the lingua franca of most sporting legal documents.
Rojas is also no stranger to controversy having played a pivotal role in the sacking of the left-leaning Mayor of Bogota, the second most powerful political position in Colombia after the country’s President, allegedly due to ending the garbage collection by private contractors.
In recent years, women’s football in Colombia has had a #MeToo case to deal with, not dissimilar to the issues faced by Afghanistan women’s football.
In the case of Afghanistan, the former President of the FA was banned for life by the FIFA Ethics Committee when he was found guilty of sexual abuse of at least five female players, while the CEO was banned for five years for failing to take appropriate action.
In Colombia’s case, the Under-17 women’s coach, Didier Luna, escaped jail after a deal with the prosecutor after pleading guilty to a case of sexual harassment perpetrated on the former team physiotherapist, Carolina Rozo. The deal has meant that Luna escaped a 28-month prison sentence in return for a fine, and that his official record will see the conviction downgraded to causing an injury, rather than sexual harassment. Luna is also alleged by Rozo to have sexually harassed players in his charge though this was not the subject of the Court proceedings.
So far, no action has been taken against Luna by FIFA even though the FIFA Ethics Code (Article 23) states clearly that “sexual harassment is forbidden”, particularly in cases where “coercion” is involved.
FIFA's Ethics Code also requires a 90-day suspension once an individual is under investigation for any offence by authorities.
But rather than any action against Luna, FIFA and CONMEBOL issued a tepid statement stating that they were ‘committed to protecting and guaranteeing the safety of children in soccer’.
FIFA President
And this leads us to a potentially impending issue for the FIFA President, Gianni Infantino.
Firstly, a bit of background before leading to the implications for the vote.
It seems Infantino may be in a spot of bother in Switzerland because of an impending investigation into the Swiss Attorney-General, Michael Lauber.
Swiss Attorney-General, Michael Lauber
Lauber has already been sanctioned by Federal authorities in Switzerland for disloyalty, lying and breaching his office's code of conduct after committing what is described as “very serious breaches” in relation to extraordinarily lengthy FIFA investigations, following reports of possible collusion with Infantino.
There are also three separate lawsuits pending: one against Infantino and two against Lauber, which were introduced in the Bern Prosecutor’s office requesting that the matter be handled by a ‘Federal Investigatory Authority’ because of the “national dimension” of the issues and the individuals involved.
One of the alleged instances of collusion concerns a potential investigation by Lauber’s department into a television rights contract awarded by Infantino to an offshore company when Infantino worked at UEFA. Swiss newspaper Tribune de Genève alleged that Infantino met with Lauber in an effort to get the investigation dropped in 2016, soon after he was elected FIFA President.
While it may be appropriate for the Swiss Attorney-General and the FIFA President to meet, such meetings should not be secret and they should be documented.
This is said to be of particular concern to some Swiss MPs because of how it reflects on the Swiss justice system and Switzerland’s international reputation, which is facing increasing criticism from around the world about the less-than-snail’s pace approach it has taken to the FIFA investigations. That criticism gathered even further steam when the case against the German FA for an alleged illegal payment by FIFA to the DFB for the 2006 World Cup was dropped recently because the statute of limitations had passed.
It has also been alleged that the former Swiss Director of Public Prosecutions, Oliver Thomann, who was required to leave because of accepting gifts from FIFA, is a relative of Lauber and recommended him to FIFA for an official role with the FIFA Foundation.
If Lauber is revoked by the Swiss Parliament in September, then the spotlight will fall on the FIFA President who would surely face suspension for the 90-day minimum period.
Who decides on such a suspension? Infantino’s hand-picked Ethics Committee Chairman, Maria Rojas.
If Rojas was to follow the requirements of the Ethics Code and suspend Infantino, the acting President of FIFA would become the current senior vice-president, Shaikh Salman Al-Khalifa of Bahrain, who is the President of the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) and stood against Infantino for the FIFA Presidency in February 2016.
Who does AFC support?
FFA Chairman, Chris Nikou, has said repeatedly in relation to the 2023 bid that he would only proceed with the bid if it was supported by Shaikh Salman. We can only assume, therefore, that he has secured that support.
This is important because the AFC has six voters who, in addition to Salman from Bahrain, are from Bangladesh, China, India, the Philippines, Qatar and Japan. (Former national team player Tashima Kohzo of Japan, as with Jesurun from Colombia and Johanna Wood from New Zealand, are not allowed to vote).
However, Japan has also been quietly active and recently promised to introduce a new fully professional WE.League (for Women’s Empowerment) that sits above the current Nadeshiko or J.League for women. The plan is to start with a 6-10 team competition and increase the teams via promotion before relegation.
If Salman does support Australia/New Zealand, he is likely to bring with him all other voters in Asia except perhaps Du of China for broader geopolitical reasons, as well as some of the seven votes from Africa, and potentially some votes from UEFA.
Shaikh Salman has been accused since 2015 by almost every civil rights group in Bahrain, most football journalists in the UK media, Simon Hill in Australia, and #NewFIFANow of human rights violations. This was taken to a further level last year when Hakeem Al-Araibi was put in jail in Thailand under threat of repatriation to Bahrain, until his case was pursued by human rights activist Craig Foster, and Chairman of the PFA and Executive Director of the World Players' Union Brendan Schwab, as well as the then two Australians of the Year who saved 13 Thai football kids and their coach.
President of the AFC, Shaikh Salman of Bahraiin
Such was the perception of Salman in 2016 when he ran for President of FIFA against Infantino, that FIFA’s US PR firm, Teneo, briefed international journalists that FIFA’s much-valued ‘victim status’ would be at risk if Salman was elected.
Shaikh Salman’s closest confidant in sport is one of the most notorious men in world sport, Sheikh Ahmad Al-Sabah of Kuwait, a former FIFA Council member and still an IOC member. You can read more about Sheikh Al-Sabah here.
Al-Sabah and Salman once moved to get rid of Australia from the AFC and were only stopped from succeeding due to the support and political muscle of the then AFC President, Mohamed Bin Hammam of Qatar.
Yet when Nikou was elected to the AFC Executive in April last year, it was because Al-Sabah was running a ticket of who the voters should support. He meet with the voters privately in the hotel next door to where the AFC meeting was being held to ‘advise’ them how to do so. Every single name on Al-Sabah’s ticket, which included Nikou, was elected.
So if we do receive Salman’s support, and if he does bring a number of voters with him, it will not come without a debt in his favour.
Have the voters learned a lesson?
There are 37 people on the FIFA Council, with 34 voters in this instance because Council members from bidding nations are unable to vote. Similar to previous World Cup votes, it is an exhaustive ballot with the lowest placed country dropping out of the first ballot if no bid has a majority of 18 votes in the first round.
If the FIFA Council votes on the basis of the technical evaluation only, Australia/New Zealand should win followed by Japan and Colombia.If the culture of FIFA shows it is has not learned any lessons, it will be a closely fought contest.
How could the votes fall?
Where could Australia’s votes come from? It is merely speculation, but here is a possible permutation of how the votes could fall in the first round.
Asian Football Confederation (total votes: 6 – excluding Japan)
If Salman supports Australia/New Zealand, he is likely to bring the votes of at least three others with him (Bangladesh, Qatar and Philippines).
China is not likely to support Australia due to broader geopolitical issues, unless confederation solidaruy overrides that.
India has a close relationship with both Australia and Japan and could go either way.
Confederation of African Football (total votes: 7)
If Salman can bring votes with him, it could be all of them, as CAF likes to vote in a bloc – although they do not always do so (Burundi, Congo, Egypt, Guinea, Madagascar, Malawi, Tunisia).
Hany Abo Rida of Egypt is the only person remaining on the FIFA Council who also had a vote in 2010. He also informed us in 2009 that he had concerns about Australia’s 2022 bid on commercial grounds; he has no grounds for such concern now.
Many members of CAF are also aligned with Infantino.
CONCACAF (total votes: 5)
CONCACAF also like to vote as a bloc and are historically close to CONMEBOL (South America). A World Cup in Colombia would suit their broadcasters also. The voters are from Canada, Cuba, Panama, Turks and Caicos Islands and the USA.
Having said that, the President of CONCACAF (from Canada) is close to FFA CEO, James Johnson, and the US representative – who, by the way, worked alongside Jack Warner and Chuck Blazer for decades without turning a hair – is known to favour Australia … at least he says he does.
On the other hand, Cuba and Panama may support Colombia if they forsake confederation solidarity.
CONMEBOL (total votes: 4 – excluding Colombia)
With Brazil withdrawing their bid prior to release of the technical evaluation report, all of South America are expected to support Colombia’s bid (Brazil, Ecuador, Paraguay, Uruguay).
OFC (total votes: 2 – excluding New Zealand)
The two Oceania voters (from Vanuatu and Fiji) are expected to support the Australia/New Zealand bid.
UEFA (total voters: 9)
England and Italy will likely favour Australia/New Zealand, while Portugal is more than likely to support Colombia.
The other voters are from Cyprus, France, Hungary, Montenegro, Slovenia (UEFA President) and Russia.
Russia is unlikely to vote for Australia; Cyprus is more than likely to be aligned. Russian member, Alexey Sorokin, is said to have “zero interest” in women's football, and is not a fan of Australia's football officials (or Australia's football whistleblower ��).
At play for UEFA, is the prospect of convincing South America to drop their bid to host the 2030 World Cup (the centenary of the tournament, first held in Uruguay), thereby putting Europe in poll position.
FIFA President (1)
Will he opt for his friends from Colombia on the basis that it is a continent that has never hosted the women's edition of the World Cup?
Or will be go with the most lucrative option for FIFA and, in the process, also awarding the World Cup to a region that has never hosted it, the Oceania Football Confederation?
Or will he opt for a Japan, former World Cup winner, and a former World Cup co-host in 2002?
Ultimately, Infantino is a football politician and he wants to stay in the job. He will do whatever it takes to ensure he is re-elected in 2023, and that may well be doing what is best for FIFA financially, particularly as he is about to dip into FIFA reserves for COVID-19 relief for all member federations.
He also positions himself as the 'reform' candidate – introducing some reforms advocated by others for a long time, but forced upon FIFA in 2016. On this basis, he must vote for the best technical bid.
One thing is for certain, I and many others will be watching.