Rotation (Part Two

It’s Coming:

Africa needed the World Cup. It was an integral part of South African plans to improve and develop its infrastructures through hosting major sporting events – a plan that had been in place for many years culminating in the World Cup itself. “Through the hosting of events a country will develop world class infrastructure and good stadia and that is what is needed on the continent,” said Dr Danny Jordaan, the CEO of the Organising Committee of South Africa’s World Cup.

The rest of the continent has to make do with hosting the African Cup of Nations – itself an important tool in the development of Africa on and off the pitch. “I think that if you look at the African Cup of Nations [2008] the standard was very high with the number of stars playing here,” said Jordaan. “There was Didier Drogba, Michael Essien, Samuel Eto’o, Frédéric Kanouté and the list just goes on. There were a lot of high quality players in each and every team and that shows that Africa will be a force to be reckoned with. Africa must be allowed to develop in world football.”

The same was true of Angola’s African Cup of Nations this January, but the means of bringing the World Cup to Africa and developing those infrastructures in South Africa has already been scrapped by FIFA. Rotation has been abandoned without a whimper, but why?

Abandoned:

It was South America’s turn after Africa and COMNEBOL (the South American confederation) produced only one bid – Brasil – a violation of the open bidding policy. However, this was almost inevitable in a confederation that only has ten members, especially as many of them lack the resources to host the event. That limited the prospect of competitive bidding anyway. The global economic climate made bidding unjustifiable. How could governments that knew their country was feeling the pinch explain the lost resources to their people at such a time?

“I think that what has happened in South America is that there was a non-competitive bid and that would indicate the flip side of this policy that countries on the continent can come together and agree that that continent will only put one candidate forward,” said Jordaan.

But in this case it made perfect sense. Brasil wanted to host the World Cup – it wanted it badly. It was its turn. Why should other countries waste resources, especially if they couldn’t afford it, or didn’t think they stood a chance? “In that case you don’t have a competitive bid, so I think the World Cup 2014 has already been allocated to Brasil without the competition,” said Jordaan. “I think that competition always brings out the best focus, but the World Cup in Brasil will be wonderful. Brasil is a great football country.”

Unfair:

So what happens when Africa demands another chance to host football’s premier event, especially if the rest of the world refuses to give it a fair chance again? And what about CONCACAF, whose turn was next under the rotation system? Asia has missed out as well. The beneficiaries of this decision are the very confederations that had most to lose from rotation in the first place – the ones that made it necessary.

Europe had hosted ten of the eighteen previous World Cups without rotation and after Brasil in 2014, South America will have hosted five. That will be three quarters of all World Cups between them. What did they have to gain from a system that spread the tournament around the world and limited their members’ opportunities?

“Now if you look at 2018 the first that will be an open bid, it’s going to be a huge contest,” said Jordaan. “I think that will force those countries to make sure that everything is in place, when the delegation comes around to examine the infrastructure.” But what will happen to plans for development that depended on hosting the World Cup in unsuccessful bid countries? Will those infrastructures still be developed, or will the plans just gather dust?

And what of COMNEBOL’s members? Under rotation they would have to wait at least twenty years for another chance. Now they can bid as early as 2022. Not bad for a confederation with ten members that will have hosted a quarter of all the World Cups after Brasil in 2014. Consequently, a continent that had done very well without rotation and then benefited from it, was responsible for its demise, while confederations that would have benefited lost future opportunities. Where is the justice in that?