MONEY RUNS THINGS IN SPORT AS ELSEWHERE IN SOCIETY
The current FIFA World Cup is in the news of the world for a variety of reasons but none more so than the significance of the billions of dollars that the competition is generating in the host nations and the coffers of the international federation itself.
There is little doubt that this year’s edition of the Football World Cup will be historic for its revenue generation, as three nations are playing host to the same competition, global reach of media coverage and attendance numbers. But the sporting spectacle will also be in recorded history for its politics, as well as what some may claim to be perceived hypocrisy and insensitivity.
Political Football
History often reveals the dishonesty of sport leaders throughout history in insisting that sport and politics are kept apart when, in hindsight, the two are always intertwined, manipulated and manipulative.
Just as happens in real politics across the world, sport leaders have managed to emerge persuasive, seeking to convince the international community that they have somehow discovered the art of a special form of people-manipulation, that all boils down to the role of money in getting the international community to accept the latest manoeuvre as ‘brilliant’ and ‘progressive’.
A few years ago, FIFA was embroiled in one of the biggest scandals in sporting history. A number of the leaders of the organisation were found guilty of major financial indiscretions. Many of them were banned from the game.
Investigative reports revealed the extensive nature of corruption at the highest levels of the sport’s administration.
A BBC news report dated 24 March 2021, addressed the additional bans on some of FIFA’s officials. It stated in part, “The investigations into Messrs Blatter and Valcke covered various charges, in particular concerning bonus payments in relation to Fifa competitions that were paid to top Fifa management officials, various amendments and extensions of employment contracts, as well as reimbursement by Fifa of private legal costs in the case of Mr Valcke.”
‘In its findings, world football’s investigatory chamber found Blatter accepted “an undue economic benefit” of 23m Swiss Francs (£18m) “split over the years 2010 to 2014, as a result of the conflict of interest created by the allocation and execution of extraordinary bonus payments between limited top-ranking Fifa officials”.It also found that Blatter, Valcke, along with former Argentina football federation president Julio Grondona and ex-Fifa finance director Markus Kattner, had “set up a scheme through which they were allowing themselves to obtain extraordinary benefits with a minimum of effort”.
‘It added: “This vicious circle saw three of them (Blatter, Grondona and Valcke) signing the amendment contracts of the others and approving the respective extraordinary bonuses, while the fourth (Kattner) was in charge of implementing the payment of such bonuses (as well as of keeping the matter “off the books”, by not reflecting the bonuses in the Fifa financial statements and not reporting them to the Fifa auditors).”’
Interestingly, the sport of football continued, uninterrupted, all around the world. FIFA lost none of its sponsors. Everything moved on as though nothing had happened. It appeared that FIFA was such a lucrative investment impacting the world that no commercial sponsor thought the proof of extensive corruption warranted any action on their part. None seemed anxious to show dissatisfaction with the organisation to such an extent that it would have led them to withdraw from their sponsorship engagement with the organisation and the sport it represents.
At best, the majority of sponsors associated with FIFA and its products merely felt is necessary only to indicate that they were monitoring the situation. They never moved beyond that.
The reality has been that the sponsors were more interested in maintaining their relationship with FIFA since this was far too lucrative to lose. The money was far more important than addressing ethical and moral issues and their long-term implications.
Olympic Scandals
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has also had its fair share of scandals through the years. It is a different sort of organisation from other international sport federations. The IOC is a self-perpetuating organisation. The National Olympic Committees, while considered members of the IOC, have no real membership role in respect of. the institution’s administration. Incredibly, the NOCs of the world, over 200, appear satisfied with such an arrangement, largely because they are content with being recipients of the IOC’s largesse at no expense to themselves.
The IOC is the ideal philanthropic institution. The NOCs are ‘members’ of a very special sort, with no real decision-making power over the actions of the IOC. In this regard, therefore, the IOC appears to be the world’s best sporting example of how ‘money runs things’.
Olympic scandals may well be said to have been meticulously managed to avoid being stigmatised and punished by sponsors.
It may well be stated that the IOC’s scandals have fared much like those of FIFA and other large sporting organisations insofar as sponsors have generally ‘looked the other way’ and continued their support, finding non-creative ways of explaining themselves. In essence, though, they stay for the money. That is the unadulterated truth.
In the recent past, we have had a change of leadership at the IOC. Coventry, whom many are convinced was hand-picked by Thomas Bach, the former president, is now in charge and seems eager to fashion her own legacy, even as Bach sits at the table of importance.
One is uncertain as to what Bach thought Coventry would have done to his legacy before his very own eyes. He is finding out, much to his chagrin, even as the current president declares his support for her seeming ‘unhinging’ of much of Bach’s legacy.
In the Caribbean, we always say, ‘talk is cheap’. That may well be what we are officially getting. Bach cannot be a happy man sitting as his legacy is meticulously dismantled.
The IOC, as a self-perpetuating organisation, has bowed to international pressure from athletes. But it seems convenient for the current leadership to market the latest decision regarding funding of athletes in the manner in which Coventry has proffered.
By phrasing the financial contributions to participating athletes in the Olympics in the manner in which she has, Coventry may well be seeking to appease those athletes who are insistent that they are the producers of the IOC’s wealth and therefore are rightfully demanding a share of the profits their performances create.
The reality is that the IOC cannot legitimately justify its continued refusal to reward athletes for their performances. Coventry’s latest proposal simply delays the inevitable. The traditional Olympic Games model is at an end.
Close examination of the mode of operation of the IOC reveals far too many discrepancies in terms of administration and governance. Here is an organisation that passes judgment on itself and imposes its will on the NOCs, which are its members but not really ‘decision-making members’. It is incredible that in an age such that exists today, this type of organisation exists and remains as influential as it is.
The actions of the new IOC President have no significant change. It is bottling old wine, appropriately in ‘old skins’, because of a refusal to creatively develop either new wine or new bottles. This indecision is an embarrassment to all concepts of us being a ‘post-modern’ society.
The IOC, for all its philanthropic commitment, leaves the old order very much well established and firmly entrenched. The age-old global divide remains intact. Care is taken to facilitate the hegemonic control over sport that has always been in existence.
Coventry is just another in the line of leaders who may have been hand-picked to hold the fort. Importantly, Thomas may well have been hand-picked by others at the time. There may be much difficulty in determining whether there was ever a time when money, wealth and colour did not influence the election processes in the IOC as much as has been the case in FIFA and several other major international sport organisations.
Sport, like all other aspects of global society, is a profound reflection of how much money runs things. This is the reason that close investigations will always yield a biased, almost blighted reality that has only changed names over time: North/South; Centre/Periphery; Rich/Poor.
Theory versus practice
Sport is one of the fastest-growing industries in the world today. Investors have latched onto the industry and have all found ways to enrich themselves. The IOC has survived because of its transformation into a multi-billion-dollar enterprise, in and of itself. Prior to the Summer Olympics in Los Angeles in 1984, the IOC was always tinkering on the edges of monumental financial challenges. The Los Angeles Organising Committee, led at the time by Peter Ueberroth, known for his management style and creativity, brought his financial management skill competencies to bear on the sponsorship aspect of hosting the Games. IOC puts it this way, he ‘did something quite unlike previous chairmen. Instead of selling multiple sponsorships for the upcoming 1984 Games, he made sponsorships a precious item, limiting the number that could be sold, but demanding high fees for those rights’.
Following the Games of 1984, the IOC establishment of The Olympic Programme, now The Olympic Partner (TOP) programme, where the IOC engaged ‘a limited number of partners, usually only one corporate sponsor for any type of category – such as cars, computers, food, beverages, etc. – giving them exclusive rights to the Olympic symbol and to use it in advertising for the period of sponsorship.’ The programme still exists.
Increased revenue from media rights has also increased exponentially.
The cost of hosting mega sport events continues to increase, and so too the demand for greater financing from sponsors and other agencies.
We have also witnessed the rise of legal betting on sport competitions in the contemporary period, adding to opportunities to generate revenue. We have seen this in USA Professional sports, the Indian Premier League and now, at the current Football World Cup. It is only a matter of time before we have psychologists ringing alarm bells on the deleterious consequences of gambling, especially now that the betting can be done from the phone in one’s hand. For now, though, there is little concern being expressed.
As the global economy continues to be dominated by fewer nations and the cost of living rises everywhere, we are likely to address the emergent concerns only after a significant amount of damage is done. We love to be ad hoc in our dealings with danger.
Nothing has changed.
