JONATHAN COHN DECEMBER 3, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
How shrewd is Vladimir Putin? In his bid to host a World Cup—an event that would inevitably turn into a grotesque advertisement for his regime, if one reasonably assumes that he’ll still be repressing Russia in 2018—Putin feigned contempt. He called the whole process of bidding for a World Cup an “unfair competition,” suggesting it had been rigged to favor his western European competitors. Then, of course, he turned around and entered the unfair competition in the ruthless manner it was meant to be played. That’s how it works in FIFA—the reductio ad absurdum of a bloated, corrupt international governmental body.
The United States used to be masters at this sort of scheming. We knew how to navigate the (often) grubby byways of global institutions; we could cut details to win the allegiances of smaller countries when we needed them; we rhetorically positioned ourselves for triumph. But today we failed in our bid to host our second World Cup. (We were angling for the tournament in 2022, not competing directly against Putin.) In this classic instance of hard-nosed soft-power diplomacy, we were badly outplayed by … Qatar.
(Click here to read Jim Downie’s description of Qatar’s expensive methodology.)
It is fitting that this failure came in the same week as the Wikileaks revelations. They both seem to capture this bleak moment for the United States—and not just because of the whiff of incompetence that accompanies these episodes. (Click here to read all of TNR's obsessive coverage of the juicy State Department cables.)
They both highlight the paradoxes of American power. Yes, the world still badly needs us. In the State Department cables, foreign leaders are constantly whispering their agreement with American policy—on subjects from Iran sanctions to Pakistani nukes—and, for the most part, seem happy to have us playing an outsized role in the world. The same is true for the world of soccer, where the relatively well-heeled American consumer remains the biggest prize for the game’s marketers. But neither the foreign heads of state nor the rulers of FIFA cared to publicly express their longing for American leadership. We have power without prestige, and allies who are reticent to closely identify with us.
One interesting side drama to the American bid was the role played by Bill Clinton, who in recent months has become a great champion of soccer. He flew to Zurich to make the closing American argument. This set up an implicit and inevitable comparison with Barack Obama, his foil in what will likely be an everlasting game of one-upmanship. Obama, you’ll recall, travelled to Copenhagen to press the case for the Chicago Olympics, and was painfully rebuffed. This was trumpeted as evidence of his impotence and narcissism.
Those of us who desperately crave bringing the World Cup back to the U.S. were banking on global nostalgia for the nineties—the last time the world truly adored us—to walk us over the line. Clinton’s slick presentation to FIFA (which, full disclosure, name-checked my book) hit all the right notes. It paid obeisance to American humanitarianism; it subtly pressed the case for healing the Bush-era cleavages separating us from the world. And it was ultimately doomed. In both bids, however, the failures had nothing to do with the messengers. They were doomed before the big guns flew in at the last minute. They died because American power without prestige is a debilitating condition.
8 comments
I'd say linking this to American power without prestige is overthinking this a bit. If anything, the US bid was likely hamstrung in its way by America's power. America can host the World Cup whenever it wants; if the World Cup was to start tomorrow, the US could throw a bid together and make it happen (even in December: just host games in empty college football stadia). Heck, for all the talk about Qatar being the size of Connecticut, New York-New England could probably host a decent World Cup on its own: (Giants Stadium, The Bills' Stadium, Gillette, the Yale Bowl, Carrier Dome, Harvard Stadium, UConn's Stadium, Fenway, Yankee Stadium, etc.), and it would no doubt have a higher attendance than Qatar. Blatter's FIFA is all about "Legacy," which is to say, having these countries build things for the World Cup. In that regard, it's not surprising that the two bids with the most technical problems won. It gives FIFA a double edged prospect of building a "legacy" in the countries. It can claim to be expanding football (and in some respects, the recent era of football has; the 1994 and 2002 World Cups in unlikely locales were big in expanding the sport). It likes pretty new things to show off the World, like Soccer City and the new Cape Point stadia. At the same time, bids that need building come from a) countries with little leverage to stand up to FIFA, ensuring they can bully all the tax breaks, monopolies, donations and corporate payouts out of the government they want, and b) require a ton of new construction, which comes with construction contracts that can go to FIFA cronies. Of course, the new FIFA model is awful: It places the burden of building massive White elephants in Third World nations. South Africa was fun, but it now has a first world footballing infrastructure and no one to use it, all while retaining massive social problems and inequality. Qatar will be so full of White elephants (with white elephant technology like outdoor airconditioned pitches; good luck with that one: I think players could skip the WC if those don't work 100%) that they promised to "disassemble" the stadia and send them to "developing countries," no doubt ones close to the FIFA Executive Committee. It's a massive waste of money, but Qatar, like Dubai and the Saudis before them, have no clue how to productively use their petrodollars. Unlike Korea-Japan and the US though, these aren't really untapped markets for football, no matter what Blatter's crowd things. Russia has a long footballing history, and the Soviets were perennial qualifiers who went deep in both the WC and the Euros. The Middle East has football right now, and enjoys it on satellite TV. There are strong regional powers already with heritage, even though they end up in different Federations: Turkey and Iran each do well, as do the North African Arab squads like Algeria, Tunisia and Egypt. The reason the local leagues stink is that it's just too darn hot for the sport, and no money will change that. US bids could use harder vote counters and better ambassadors, however: I'm reminded of Andrew Young's roll on the 1996 Atlanta Olympic bid, where even though he was Mayor at the time he was a valuable vote counter and ambassador, no doubt stemming in part from his time as Ambassador at the UN. More recent US Bids haven't seemed to have someone with that kind of skill-set and background as part of the leadership team.
- Crock1701
December 3, 2010 at 1:27am
Little bit overwrought Frank. You did host in the 90's afterall and it is The World Cup. I think FIFA made the right calls. I don't doubt the panel is corrupt as hell but it's time for Russia to host the World Cup; it will integrate Russia further into the West, culturally speaking and bringing the WC to the Middle East is two fingers to Wahhabism and will be a unifying force. I can already see the articles about the Israeli teams bid for qualification in TNR now and the endless debates over the heat and Leon's piece on... Don't end up sounding like the bitter, childish Brits (David Beckham and the Prince...don't they realize this just makes them look elitest and juvenille?). The World Cups in Russia and Qatar are going to be off the page!
- IggyPop
December 3, 2010 at 5:42am
If Belarus gets to host the World Series, I'll start worrying. Dan
- dbuck1
December 3, 2010 at 7:47am
Thank goodness we lost!!! That's all we need, a bunch of public expenditures on some useless sports facilities that will become empty shells the day after the game is over.
- poldpf
December 3, 2010 at 9:31am
poldpf: You do realize that if the US hosted a World Cup, all the games would be in "useless sports facilities" like the Rose Bowl or Giants Stadium that are already in use hosting NFL and/or College Football teams. After the tournament, all those sports facilities would just go back to their normal day jobs. This isn't the Olympics where you have to have facilities for synchronized swimming, water polo, and rhythmic gymnastics. Iggypop: Russia could be fun, but Qatar's going to be just awful. Cramming the tournament into a country of 1.7 million people (80% of them migrants with little rights), one airport, and 120 degree heat that cools to 100 at night (and that's now: The globe can warm alot in 12 years), that's atrocious on gay rights, bad on women's rights, and with no bars outside those deep in 5 star hotels? Sounds like a grand old time, ay? As to it being a fight against Wahabbism and unifying force? It's not like the Middle East never heard of soccer; Like I said, There are strong regional powers already with heritage and fans, even though they end up in different Federations: Turkey and Iran each do well, as do the North African Arab squads like Algeria, Tunisia and Egypt. Saudi Arabia made four straight world cups from 1992-2006. Still aren't changing the regimes or public opinion there. Between Satellite TV and Friendlies and tours played these days around the Emirates, they aren't lacking for the sport. Moreover, given the tournament's 12 years away, who knows where "Wahabbism" and the Middle East will be. The World Cup also won't bring Russia into the West, because Russia and their national football team have been playing in the West, playing in UEFA for years. They've been in the Champions League, European Cup, and the Euros for decades, even in the Iron Curtain years. Their players these days play for some of the top European clubs, like Andrey Arshavin at Arsenal and Yuri Zhirkov at Chelsea (also owned by Roman Abramovich, a Russian). They hosted the Champions League final two years ago in Moscow. They're already integrated in Europe from a football and footballing cultural prospective. The World Cup, while perhaps a good time, won't change that.
- Crock1701
December 3, 2010 at 11:32am
Like so much bloggery hereabouts, this post fails the "and what is to be done?" test. I propose this: The US federation should announce that as of immediately, the United States declines to serve as FIFA's designated backup site for major events. Since shortly after 1994, we've been the primary backup site for most FIFA events, and several times we've saved FIFA's bacon by hosting events that had to be relocated at the last minute. This includes a Women's World Cup China had to drop. If FIFA wants to gamble with a World Cup in Qatar, fine, but don't look to us to bail you out, and in the meantime if any other events have problems, go ask the Qataris if any of their stadiums are ready.
- rhubarbs
December 3, 2010 at 3:44pm
Hell hath no fury like an American (who thinks he's been) scorned--except maybe a "bitter, childish Brit". Ziggy Pop is on the money here. What's the big issue? High-end sporting events are starting to go to countries outside the traditional core, and some people act as though the End Times have arrived. Granted, India's performance as host of the Commonwealth Games was a bit shaky, but in the end, these things are only kinderspiele--and I say that as a dedicated Yankees and Giants fan. Let's not get overwrought. Crock, I just looked up average Doha temperatures for July: 106 high and 84 low. I'll tell you right now that the ME with its dry heat can be absolutely beautiful and comfortable after the sun goes down. It's certainly easier to get to for the Europeans. If they play evening matches, it will be MUCH more comfortable in 2022 than Brazil in 2014 with its humidity. (And of course granted that Doha is not Rio!) As far as the alcohol, I agree that's an open question, but let's see what they come up with--we might be surprised. Rhubarbs, I have only one question in response to your "plan": WHY??? Qatar is awarded the World Cup so we pick up our marbles in a huff and go home, making loud threats and imprecations as we depart. What can you be thinking? Let's keep a historical perspective on this: Italy--under Mussolini--hosted the WC in 1934; Argentina hosted the WC during its "Dirty War" in 1978. We've had Nazi and Communist dictatorships host the Olympics as well as the Jim Crow-ridden US in 1932 when the KKK was running rampant in the Midwest and elsewhere. China, with its issues, put on a great Olympics--of which the Chinese people were tremendously proud--in 2008. What's with the antipathy to a flawed but ambitious Qatar?
- ccarrick@vzavenue.net-old
December 4, 2010 at 8:12pm
Oops: Iggy Pop, not Ziggy Pop.
- ccarrick@vzavenue.net-old
December 4, 2010 at 8:34pm