BBC BLOGS - James Pearce
« Previous | Main | Next »

Fifa should learn from IOC

Post categories:

James Pearce | 15:18 UK time, Tuesday, 7 December 2010

A decade ago, the International Olympic Committee was mired in a corruption scandal that was far bigger than anything that has so far been proved against Fifa and any members of its executive committee. 'Cash for votes' was not just the subject of allegations, there were hard facts to prove that IOC members had taken large bribes.

So it is fair to say that, when it comes to corruption, the IOC does not have a track record of which its members can be proud. Salt Lake City won the right to host the 2002 Winter Olympics by offering scholarships to the children of IOC members, land in Utah and other lavish gifts. It is hard to hold any discussion about corruption in sport without referring back to a scandal that could have brought down the Olympic movement.

The IOC would love to forget about this sordid episode. You could understand, therefore, if senior members of the IOC went red with embarrassment at any mention of the word "corruption", if such talk was now banned at the headquarters in Lausanne. In fact, the opposite is the case and there is a great deal Fifa could learn from the IOC's example.

Following the BBC Panorama programme about corruption in football last week, Fifa issued a brief statement insisting that the allegations raised had been dealt with and the "case is closed". There seems to be little or no chance that Fifa will carry out any further investigation.

Contrast that with the reaction from the IOC. Issa Hayatou, one of the members of the Fifa executive committee named by Panorama, is also a member of the IOC. Within hours of the broadcast, there was a statement from the IOC, which said it would ask the BBC to forward all the evidence to the "appropriate authorities" and its ethics commission would open an investigation. "The IOC," we were told, "has a zero tolerance against corruption."

I should add that Hayatou denies the allegations against him and could well be cleared by the IOC investigation. The speed of the IOC's response, though, and its tone emphasised the current gulf between the transparency of the bodies that govern the Olympics and football respectively. Last week, the IOC wanted to be seen as open and clean, while Fifa only wanted to talk about anything other than allegations of corruption.

IOC president Jacques Rogge held a meeting with Fifa counterpart Sepp Blatter, in October. Rogge's quote from that day is interesting. "'I encouraged him to do what he has done and clean out as much as possible," he said. "We have been through this... and the IOC came out as a better and more transparent organisation. I hope that happens to my friends."

The IOC president Jacques Rogge is doing his best to push for reform at Fifa. Photo: Reuters

I am sure that, privately at least, Blatter might well prefer that Rogge minds his own business but there is no doubt that the IOC president is doing his best to push for reform at Fifa. There has been wild talk about countries such as England and Australia leading a breakaway from Fifa but that is so unlikely to happen.

The only way that Fifa will change is if there is strong and united international pressure. There are few organisations better placed to provide that than the IOC. Football's an Olympic sport, so the IOC has every right to get involved in the Fifa debate. How ironic would it be if an organisation that was nearly brought to its knees by corruption a decade ago ended up being the body that finally forces change at Fifa?

Wide-ranging reform at Fifa is unlikely to happen in the short term. But even if Blatter wants to nudge his organisation gently on to a path of greater transparency, then he could do a lot worse than follow the IOC's example. Look at how the IOC reformed its voting system after the Salt Lake City scandal. In particular, there was one major change that dramatically lessened the opportunities for corruption.

If you are an IOC member, you are no longer allowed to visit any candidate cities without permission. Instead, the IOC members are told to form their opinions from the official technical report. Yes, in Olympic circles technical reports are actually read, unlike the Fifa ones that appear to have been ignored. A city that had been branded "high risk" in the way that Qatar was by Fifa would be very unlikely to win an IOC vote.

In contrast, the 24 members of Fifa's executive committee were able to travel the world for free during the contests for the 2018 and 2022 World Cups. If one of them fancied a weekend in London with his wife, then all he needed to do was pick up a phone or click his fingers and it was all laid on. A five-star hotel, limousine, hospitality at the Premier League game of his choice... The bid teams had no choice but to pander to the voters' every need. These lucky men were wined and dined in destinations stretching from Moscow to Sydney, via New York, Tokyo, Seoul and many other of the world's great cities.

The IOC put a stop to all this. The rules for Olympic voters are now far tighter.

If Fifa voters are banned from travelling to the bidding countries, it would not be enough to make the process appear clean but it would at least be an important first step.

Anybody who has followed the workings of Fifa over the years will be aware that change does not come easily or swiftly. The same could be said of the IOC. But look at the IOC now compared with the IOC of 15 years ago. The IOC is still far from perfect but it is a major player on the international stage with a reputation that has largely been restored.

If football fans around the world feel disillusioned by last week's events, then I suggest they take some comfort from the fact that the IOC has shown that reform IS possible.


or register to comment.

  • 1. At 5:15pm on 07 Dec 2010, troneras z wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 2. At 5:17pm on 07 Dec 2010, troneras z wrote:

    Quite dificult to believe given that most FIFA directors are also IOC they are clean on one side and dark on the other??

    Complain about this comment

  • 3. At 5:19pm on 07 Dec 2010, PrincePaolo wrote:

    Hi James

    Great blog. I completely agree with what you're saying. The only problem in stimulating change at FIFA is that they are not regulated independently, and they are ultimately accountable to nobody (not even the member associations!)

    They have long stated their disdain for poitical interference in the game, but like you say, if the IOC take an interest in their operations it may prove more difficult for Sepp and Co to resist reform.

    I have written a piece about this on my blog - it might interest you...

    Complain about this comment

  • 4. At 5:20pm on 07 Dec 2010, rjaggar wrote:

    I think the most likely way that will happen is if Blatter's successor is elected on that platform.

    What's the chances of his favoured candidate, Mohammed bin Hammam, embracing that?

    And what's the chance of anyone else being successful in opposing him on that ticket??

    Complain about this comment

  • 5. At 5:30pm on 07 Dec 2010, Chief Laughs-at-Trolls wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 6. At 5:31pm on 07 Dec 2010, LostmekecksintheGmex wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 7. At 5:35pm on 07 Dec 2010, Flux Redux wrote:

    Apart from the word "lose" being the most misspelled word on the internets, I don't think you can compare the IOC to FIFA. One is transparent and the other is opaque.

    Complain about this comment

  • 8. At 5:35pm on 07 Dec 2010, Crumbs wrote:

    The main problem is, that like most politicians, the people heading these respective boards are people underserving of the power they have. Furthermore they know not how to act when given such power and influence, and quite clearly are greedy and forceful with such traits. It's the way it will always be; the wrong people having the power to do whatever they want, regardless of consequence.

    FIFA is a private boys club. They will do whatever they want, monopolise the sport and get paid huge amounts of money to do so. I can't see that changing in a long time. Football is a huge, global enterprise, and if anyone thinks that will change just because of a BBC documentary and seemingly rigged elections, they are very much deluded. I can't see a reform for at least a 15/20 years, with the only reprieve coming if Blatter and co. get too old to be competent enough to run the organisation.

    Complain about this comment

  • 9. At 5:41pm on 07 Dec 2010, Numanciasaint wrote:

    I might be wrong but change came about with a clean sweep of the IOC old guard and a new leadership coming in with a will for change and transparency.

    This is what is needed with FIFA. Unfortunatly Sepp Blatter's politburo (this how they are behaving, so it's ironic the world cup has gone to Russia) won't change or retire whilst they are benefitting from freebies from bidding host nations. Most of the FIFA Executive committee are over 65.

    I believe Geoff Thompson's replacement from Northern Ireland wants change but pressure for real change needs to come from Platini and UEFA, South America and Asia where the football power and money comes from to make FIFA change.

    Complain about this comment

  • 10. At 5:43pm on 07 Dec 2010, Nushed wrote:

    One glance at the membership list of the IOC always offered hope of reform. Being labelled as corrupt probably didn't sit very well with the likes of HRH The Princess Royal.

    I do not have such confidence of reform at FIFA. This is a cozy brotherhood accountable to nobody except itself.

    The difference between the IOC and FIFA is, as James points out, one would be very unlikely to award its flagship event to a "high risk" destination such as Qatar. The other went and did it.

    Jacques Rogge has integrity. Can the same be said of Sepp Blatter?

    Complain about this comment

  • 11. At 5:48pm on 07 Dec 2010, goalmouth wrote:

    FIFA need a rival body to provide competition.Look at Boxing, Rugby, Darts.Europe has the power to form a formidable body which can organise Football parallel to FIFa

    Complain about this comment

  • 12. At 5:50pm on 07 Dec 2010, deborahincanada wrote:

    I read this article and post with interest. And as I probably know less than I should about these committees decided to find out exactly how many IOC members are also FIFA members. My results so far - I went to the IOC page, front and centre is IOC member list 30 secs from google to goal. FIFA 1/2 hour still looking and confused.....

    My main comment is "this is a NO brainer" FIFA committee to same rules as IOC voters. Technical pack and learn to read, NO FREE TRIPS easy, done. Won't solve all but will help. Come on football fans from all walks of life there are enough of us out here WE should be able to make this happen. Enough pressure and enough press.

    Complain about this comment

  • 13. At 6:00pm on 07 Dec 2010, downtheline wrote:

    Wow! out of 22 members, only 2 decided to vote for England. Can we just accept this and move on!

    Afterall, for the 2012 olympics, Paris had everything in place just like england and its executive members chose to vote for England.

    The roles are now reversed between England and Russia. Also, what is Fifa going to learn from the IOC? afterall China had the olympics with all of its baggage.

    We can continue to go on and on, the reality is when a western country does not win, it becomes an issue. Even in the UN, if 208 countries vote for a policy and the UK or US veto this is dies.

    Let's start where it matters much more to the world, the United Nations then other bodies around the world may just follow.

    We lost, fair and square... 20 did not like us.

    Complain about this comment

  • 14. At 6:11pm on 07 Dec 2010, Czechmate wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 15. At 6:19pm on 07 Dec 2010, LegendaryRedorDead wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 16. At 6:21pm on 07 Dec 2010, hm121 wrote:

    12. At 5:50pm on 07 Dec 2010, deborahincanada wrote:

    I read this article and post with interest. And as I probably know less than I should about these committees decided to find out exactly how many IOC members are also FIFA members. My results so far - I went to the IOC page, front and centre is IOC member list 30 secs from google to goal. FIFA 1/2 hour still looking and confused.....

    I did a check on the IOC and FIFA website for the committee members, and it took less then a couple of minutes to see that there are only two current members of the exCo in FIFA that are IOC members as well:

    1) Joseph Sepp Blatter
    2) Issa Hayatou

    The former FIFA president João Havelange is also part of the IOC membership.

    Just to let you know. =)

    Complain about this comment

  • 17. At 6:31pm on 07 Dec 2010, M5J29 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 18. At 6:49pm on 07 Dec 2010, Rob wrote:

    Very interesting and positive article.

    But we in England must stop bleating on like X- factor contestants about how we should have been given it simply because we wanted it and it would mean so much to us

    There were others just as harshly treated. If it's footballing tradition that matters why not Spain? Holland Portugal? Belgium?

    Even if their success was achieved by unfair means (nowhere near proven) the argument that the World Cup should go to Russia and the Middle East simply because they haven't staged it before does carry some weight.

    Complain about this comment

  • 19. At 6:50pm on 07 Dec 2010, TascheyDelBosque wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 20. At 7:20pm on 07 Dec 2010, Jim wrote:

    Start by kicking football out of the olympics until there is reform?

    Complain about this comment

  • 21. At 7:24pm on 07 Dec 2010, jim wood wrote:

    The final decision could be decided by luck of the draw (ie,no votes)winning applicant countries could be restricted from re-applying for a set period (say 50 years)selection of countries to go into the hat could be by vote of national federations. I also like the idea of setting up a rival organisation - UEFA have the necessary power to lead on that one.

    Complain about this comment

  • 22. At 7:59pm on 07 Dec 2010, mike wrote:

    This would be one change. The other has to be transparent voting-no promising bids to multiple bidders. Also, more delegates are required. Watering down an individuals voting power would be a good thing.
    Personally, I would like to see the continental body where the World Cup is to be hosted (ie UEFA or CAF), come up with two bids for the rest of FIFA to vote on.

    Complain about this comment

  • 23. At 8:17pm on 07 Dec 2010, Nushed wrote:

    21. At 7:24pm on 07 Dec 2010, jfw2354ja wrote:

    The final decision could be decided by luck of the draw (ie,no votes)winning applicant countries could be restricted from re-applying for a set period (say 50 years)selection of countries to go into the hat could be by vote of national federations. I also like the idea of setting up a rival organisation - UEFA have the necessary power to lead on that one.


    How does the governing body of European football have the power to be an alternative World body?

    Plus, the President of UEFA happens to be a FIFA Vice President too.

    Complain about this comment

  • 24. At 8:51pm on 07 Dec 2010, Ulsterforever wrote:

    The issue here boils down to the quality of leadership displayed by the respective heads of the IOC and FIFA: Rogge has integrity and credibility as President who leads an organisation that, since it reformed itself, is fit for purpose. Blatter and his committee, on the other hand, is the polar opposite! FIFA will not change its ways until Blatter steps down and is replaced by a colleague who has the vision and zeal to make radical changes. With the best will in the world, I think that reform is unlikely in the short term because it is an organisation that is unaccountable to a higher authority and is resistant to change.

    Complain about this comment

  • 25. At 10:24pm on 07 Dec 2010, Roger Birds wrote:

    IOC have stamped out corruption?


    It's not April is it?

    Complain about this comment

  • 26. At 10:57pm on 07 Dec 2010, iandavideggers wrote:

    It would be very interesting to understand exactly what our FA did for the members of FIFA, whether they be hotel rooms for family and friends, access to premier league matches or anything else deemed to be normal business by the parties. I find it difficult to understand the obvious frustration from our FA, I suspect they are not telling us the true expense.

    Complain about this comment

  • 27. At 11:25pm on 07 Dec 2010, Richard Bore wrote:

    The Continental organisations should take the power away from FIFA. The continent whose turn it is to host the world cup should agree amonst themselves who the bid will be and submit one name to FIFA. Let's see them make money out of that.

    Complain about this comment

  • 28. At 11:27pm on 07 Dec 2010, NorthKoreasExtraStriker wrote:

    FIFA - IOC

    Same thing, different label

    Complain about this comment

  • 29. At 11:27pm on 07 Dec 2010, LVBRFC wrote:

    All I can say is it would be a pointless world cup if the European nations were not involved. I don't think the trio of Brazil, Argentina and some upcoming African nations are good tv apart from the final. UEFA need to step up and do something about it.

    And the funny thing is people on here "stop moaning because England didn't get it". Personally I thought Spain/Portugal would of got it above us (I hate dual-bids, doesn't sit too nice two auto qualification spots) but yeah Russia was probably the one bid I would of never dreamed of it being awarded, same with Qatar. Thought Australia had that one nailed (the whole opening WC to the world and new continents etc).

    Complain about this comment

  • 30. At 11:38pm on 07 Dec 2010, whyficklefans wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 31. At 11:41pm on 07 Dec 2010, SportsFan wrote:

    It would be good if FIFA learns from the IOC
    But I don't think it will happen

    Complain about this comment

  • 32. At 01:01am on 08 Dec 2010, kaufman39 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 33. At 01:19am on 08 Dec 2010, G_K___ wrote:

    Have to say this continuing obsession in England with FIFA's moral good health does smack a little of sour grapes.

    Not two weeks ago, the London bid team was labelling the Panorama exposé an "embarrassment". Fast forward a few days however, to immediately after they learned their bid had been unsuccessful, and suddenly the corruption allegations were flying right, left and centre! This does seem to imply a significant uncertainty on whether to decry the alleged corruption or try to exploit it! You can bet that, had the London bid been successful, we wouldn't be hearing a peep out of the England bid team - or the English public - on the subject of corruption.

    Witness the ludicrous spectacle of Boris Johnson cancelling his offered Dorchester junket for FIFA officials - apparently on the grounds of THEIR corruption!

    It would seem that - like the Americans - he "doesn't do irony."

    Complain about this comment

  • 34. At 07:15am on 08 Dec 2010, pedwards2 wrote:

    Why is FIFA in charge of football worldwide. What is their mandate and why do commercial interests submit to it. There needs to be a body for defining and policing the rules of the game which is not allowed commercial interest in the sport. Probably the union of referees would be a good basis for this. FIFA is not viable in it's current form. It is too clearly an oligarchy

    Complain about this comment

  • 35. At 09:39am on 08 Dec 2010, JoC wrote:

    The big story in all of this is the IOC investigation into Issa Hayatou. What will be the consequences if they find he actually has a case to prove? Will it effect the WC2018/22 vote (even though some say he was England's only backer)? Will Fifa be shamed into admitting their own self-policing is a failure or dig their heels in and threaten to remove Football from the London games?

    Complain about this comment

  • 36. At 10:29am on 08 Dec 2010, Nick wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 37. At 10:46am on 08 Dec 2010, b223dy wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 38. At 10:51am on 08 Dec 2010, TheRBman wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 39. At 11:23am on 08 Dec 2010, herle wrote:

    There's no doubt that the IOC had to undergo a very significant and difficult adjustment when the Salt Lake City issues came to light. The scandal broke in the US where (as we can see with the WikiLeaks case) it is virtually impossible to hide things from the media and the public eye. What we don't and probably never will know is what happened in previous IOC venue selection processes. Rogge seems to have inherited a very badly poisoned chalice. Regarding FIFA and its future, based on what is available in public perhaps a similar risk exists for FIFA's future top management. On can ask therefore, who, in their right minds, would want that job? To find worthy and qualified successors FIFA will eventually have to go through what the IOC went through and change its ways. In the meantime organisations that wish to keep secret the way the act and how they make decisions will never agree to expose themselves to environments where there is free and open access to information. So don't expect such organisations to choose to expose their activities to the full gaze of open and transparent societies with a free press and strong media traditions of reporting. C0rruption (and worse) thrives on secrecy.

    Complain about this comment

  • 40. At 12:12pm on 08 Dec 2010, Thom wrote:

    #13 Down the Line - Drawing comparisons between London and Paris for 2012 is not valid. They both got to the final round of voting with similarly structured bids. For 2018, England had the best technical bid and the best presentation yet only got 1 vote (if you take our bid away). That is where the confusion and frustration comes in.

    It may be possible to draw comparisons with China and Russia but that still doesn't excuse the lack of transparency in voting. What is the point of a technical report if it counts for nothing? How come Quatar, who've never ever been to a World Cup, have no pedigree on the world stage and had the weakest technical bid, beat Australia, who also have never hosted a World Cup but do have a footballing history and a proven track record of putting on these type of events.

    I can face losing but I'd like to at least know the reasons why. All we wwant is transparency. Who would argue against that?

    Complain about this comment

  • 41. At 12:34pm on 08 Dec 2010, kicboy wrote:

    FIFA OFFside - boycott FIFA sponsors/ partners

    Let's run with a supermarket analogy 'Every Little Helps'. We can all use the supermarkets to begin a campaign for reform.
    - take banners to the supermarkets reminding people of FIFA sponsors
    - ask people to boycott these brands/ products
    - get people to sign petitions
    - send in your campaign photos to the press and brand HQs
    - start a social network campaign
    (get post removed for calling for transformational change... perhaps?)

    If you suspect corruption - follow the money
    If you want change - follow the money

    Complain about this comment

  • 42. At 12:38pm on 08 Dec 2010, Shah wrote:

    IOC not being corrupt? Is Sepp Blatter an IOC member and that other FIFA corny Jo Have-e-large or something.

    Given the climate and how England have been treated plus the obvious public interest. Is it not time, for Freedom of Information Requests are made to the England bid team and FA; so we can see FIFA communication and how £18m was spent. -FIFA have no legal status in the UK, and technically should not have state protection. Lets see who can do a better job then Wikileaks.

    Maybe the Panorama staff want to do some proper public work rather than sabortage? Well we can dream, but about time the BBC had an inquirey as the Panorama programme in November was clearly timed to be reckless and nothing to do with Freedom of Speech -it should have been delayed a week by the fottball-hating BBC thugs

    Complain about this comment

  • 43. At 12:44pm on 08 Dec 2010, Shah wrote:

    You know there is something wrong when a bid from a country that has never been to the World Cup, wins.

    Can you imagine a country that has never participated at an Olympic event winning the the right to host the Olympics?

    Maybe the next FIFA World Cup should be in the Falklands

    Complain about this comment

  • 44. At 1:25pm on 08 Dec 2010, gee_em_bee wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 45. At 1:29pm on 08 Dec 2010, playunextyear wrote:

    @shah (#42)

    I too was amazed at the Panorama programme's timing. They must have known that in FIFA they were dealing with a bunch of spoilt delinquents who would definitely retaliate to any challenge just as in the school playground.

    I wonder if they were trying to save themselves the hassle and expense of sorting out the share of broadcasting costs with their arch-enemies at Sky.

    But don't put the blame only on the BBC. Who owns the Sunday Times that started the ball rolling with its entrapment videos?
    Rupert Murdoch of course. His only interest in Britain is being able to control some of what happens in it through his media empire. He was an anti-monarchist republican when he started out in Oz, and is now an arch-conservative Republican in his US incarnation. Imagine how he reacted to us getting only 2 votes.

    Complain about this comment

  • 46. At 1:37pm on 08 Dec 2010, wcm wrote:

    It is very hard for FIFA to reform while IOC managed to do so. Mr Roggie is a real gentleman but Blatter is a tyrant in FIFA who sees no wrong in FIFA.

    Complain about this comment

  • 47. At 2:42pm on 08 Dec 2010, Nick wrote:

    England should stop complaining about not getting the world cup. I would have loved to have seen it here though. Like a lot of other people I am concerned about the alledged corruption that FIFA is always being linked with.

    Can we firstly look within England though. We have the FA, PL and Football League. Which one is running the show here. Surely everything should be put back under the FA. But the FA seems to be an old boys club made up of committees upon committees. Just look at how many CEO's have tried to change the way the FA is run only to be continually blocked in that the only resign. Sort the FA out and then move up from there.

    Complain about this comment

  • 48. At 6:24pm on 08 Dec 2010, 49 and thats a wrap wrote:

    #45, yeah, let's keep our mouths shut about corruption so we can get the privilege of hosting an event that at best breaks even and is run by an organization that doesn't acknowledge the problem.

    People amaze me.

    Complain about this comment

  • 49. At 8:25pm on 08 Dec 2010, HotdogSalesman wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 50. At 12:57pm on 09 Dec 2010, freddawlanen wrote:

    When will those who shout "sour grapes" realise that most people thought 2018 was too close to call, it's the 2022 vote that stinks like a skunk farm (I doubt there is such a thing, but it's the smelliest thing I could think of)

    If FIFA wants to claim that it's so open and honest, why doesn't it explain how they've given the worlds largest sporting event to the 165th biggest country (smaller than the Falklands), the 113th "best" team in their own national ranking system, a country where women aren't treated as equal to men (please check the facts unlike whoever complains about that line, before you moderate this post, you'll just look like children otherwise)

    If ANYONE can name 2 valid reasons to give the WC to Qatar, you win a prize, I'll even give you the first "reason".
    It takes the WC to a new region (clearly Australia is not different enough for FIFA)

    Complain about this comment

  • 51. At 1:06pm on 09 Dec 2010, Ecossebear wrote:

    I'm Scottish, and would have loved nothing more than a cheap wee trip south to watch the greatest tournament in the world, but we didn't win and I can't undestand why there has been such a fuss! I have real issue with the 2022 World Cup, as I believe Qatar is a shocking choice as host country. But I can't understand why England should gain preferential treatment over anyone else in the same group? Spain have the current World and European champions, and hold a very good shout at being the best country to host. Holland and Belgium managed a fantastic Euro's 10 years ago, and likewise can feel agrieved. At the end of the day, the biggest country in the world, with some fantastic stadiums, passionate fans, and the money to make it work - won the chance to host the World Cup and I think they will a really good job of it.

    I agree with the point made above that a country who has hosted a World Cup should not be allowed to vote again for 50 years. Its interesting that the Qatar choice came against USA (1996), Japan (2002) and Korea (2002) with Australia being the only other country not to have hosted one before. I do believe the Oz bid should have won, and if anyone should feel hard done by it is them. I feel the British media's shocking bias and persecution complex is embarrassing - take it on the chin the same way the other 8 losing countries have!

    Complain about this comment

  • 52. At 1:27pm on 09 Dec 2010, Evo747 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 53. At 2:03pm on 09 Dec 2010, conradk wrote:

    I hope Sepp Blatter saw what the Spartak fan got up to in their match with Zilina last night, this is where the World Cup will be in 2018, glad to see they've got their own fans under control.

    Complain about this comment

  • 54. At 2:13pm on 09 Dec 2010, QPR-Tokyo wrote:

    I see our Scottish friend does not get it. Why we are moaning is because not so much we did not get it, but it was a waste of time to enter. FIFA should have stated only associations that have never held the event will be selected. I could not care less that we did not win as I feel the Iberia bid would have been best for the England team and fans.

    Complain about this comment

  • 55. At 3:47pm on 09 Dec 2010, Rob04 wrote:

    But I'm wondering which part of FIFA's stated mission, 'to boldly go where no football tournament has been held before' was missed by the English FA.

    I see Blatter is quoted in today's press as referring to England as 'bad losers'. Well at least he got that right.

    There should have been transparency at all stages of the bidding process. Votes should also be along the lines of one association-one vote instead of being organised in blocks.

    Transparancy, however would only have led to the same outcome: nobody on the world stage likes England.

    Complain about this comment

  • 56. At 00:08am on 10 Dec 2010, PabloPiatti wrote:

    I still can't believe the decision, but are we right to challenge FIFA just because we 'lost'?

    Have a read of
    Will FIFA change because of the English reaction?

    Complain about this comment

  • 57. At 6:36pm on 10 Dec 2010, 36apples wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 58. At 11:19pm on 13 Dec 2010, Wasobia wrote:

    I think Sepp Blatter should step down as FIFA president and some eles should take over and bring in new ideal on how to improve the game we all love that we call soccer, He been their for too long, and FIFA should make it you can only run for two time in office

    Complain about this comment

View these comments in RSS


Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.