Clash of the Corruptions
People in Rio are always talking about the upcoming World Cup and Olympics. Will they be a success? What will become of Rio afterwards? Will the pacified favelas be abandoned and left to fall back into the control of drug dealers? What will happen to house prices? The list goes on.
A recent story was that Jérôme Valcke, the General Secretary of FIFA (football’s governing body), has been visiting Brazil to oversee the world cup preparations. Mr Valcke kicked up a storm by stating not only that beer must be sold in Brazilian stadiums, but that it will be sold in Brazilian stadiums. This is in spite of the fact that there has been a law here making such alcohol sales illegal since 2003 2008 (thanks Andre)! His words were:
“Alcoholic drinks are part of the Fifa World Cup, so we’re going to have them. Excuse me if I sound a bit arrogant but that’s something we won’t negotiate.”
Highlighting the fact that you're being arrogant doesn't excuse the arrogance. The head of FIFA, Sepp Blatter (also a scumbag), is a big fan of Valcke, saying: "When he began his work as director of marketing and TV in FIFA four and a half years ago, we were in a financial crisis. Currently we have an equity of 752 million Swiss francs."
Wow, I don’t know if my time in Brazil has made me a little protective or over-sensitive, but this really annoyed me! In some ways I found the wording of his statement on alcoholic drinks the most infuriating: “we’re going to have them” – oh really? So the laws of Brazil will just have to make way for the ‘laws’ of FIFA will they?
The ban on alcoholic drinks in football stadiums was introduced in the hope of reducing violence and whilst the BBC’s South American correspondent, Tim Vickery, stated this has had limited impact, he goes on to point out “this is not about violence, or even beer. It is about sovereignty”. Too right it is!
And why would an organisation like FIFA, essentially concerned with a healthy sporting activity, be so insistent on the promotion of a drug that causes all kinds of damange (to people’s bodies and to society as a whole)? Money of course. Budweiser is a big sponsor of the world cup.
As if Brazil needs ANOTHER terrible, tasteless beer. Budweiser moved in to Brazil in 2011 and out of adopted patriotism I'd rather drink a Nova Schin! (though in a blind taste test I doubt anyone could tell the difference)
But just as I was reaching maximum levels of indignation on behalf of Brazil, I read a comment from a Brazilian which stated that in all likelihood there was a Brazilian politician somewhere who was just waiting for the right sized bribe in order to rubber stamp the amendment that FIFA is demanding. Humph! That took the wind out of my outrage-sails a bit! Now I have to confess that part of me is intrigued at how the ‘unstoppable force’ of FIFA corruption is interacting with the ‘immovable object’ of Brazil’s own.
Will corrupt Brazilian politicians manage to extract the bribe they want? Will FIFA simply pass the extra expense on to Budweiser and their other sponsors? However it all works out this time, I wonder if FIFA will take such a ‘non-negotiable’ attitude to the sale of alcohol when the world cup reaches the Arab state of Qatar in 2022. I guess that even FIFA realise that their gravy train of corruption and bribery will have been forced off the rails by then.
That was arrogant of him. I am kind of pissed off too.
What’s next? Will they say that cocaine MUST be sold there too because its a part of the FIFA experience? It usually isn’t but if it were I’d be in Rio just for that reason. Love me some coke. Just kidding.
Alex, do you know what the worst part is? This guy is French!
Ha ha! Now I’m joking – I love playing up to the whole British hate the French and the Germans thing – we actually don’t (well, I don’t anyway), but Brazilians are very easily convinced that it’s true…
I have to say, I’d wonder if I’d feel the same if it was a decent beer in place of Budweiser. I suspect that if was Guinness or Pilsner Urquell instead, I’d probably switch sides! ;)
When Brazil made a bid to host the Fifa World Cup these pre-conditions – like alcohol availability in stadiums – were already in place. In other words once the government endorsed CBF’s desire to compete for the tournament, in theory, they also understood and accepted these terms. This means that Fifa is right, and not arrogant, when it complains that the executive branch has not swayed congress into passing legislation that would temporarily allow for things like beer in the stadiums: the Lei Geral da Copa, still pending approval.
I would not be surprised though if nobody on the fedral level thought about this up until it became an issue.The same way they are unable to elaborate any sort of plan for deterring, or minimizing damage caused by the forest fires that occur every year, or the floods,( usually in the same places, wow), not to mention the same old sewage issues, and so forth. So the question is “who was the moron that failed to read the fine print when the bid was made?”. The answer is that it doesn’t matter: being that this is still a middle income country then only a nation of morons would acquiesce to hosting this extremely costly, and deficit prone event in the first place.
Sorry for the rant.
In the words of The Dude (or El Duderino, if you’re not into the whole brevity thing), Yeah, well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man…
Seems to me that it is not for FIFA (an organisation that is rotten to the core with corruption, greed and criminality and that clearly does not act in the best interests of the sport it purports to represent) to come out with statements such as those of Mr Valcke whilst the law making process of Brazil is still in swing. Sure, urge a swift resolution, go ahead and lobby (in fact ‘lobby’ should have inverted commas, because FIFA’s preferred method of ‘lobbying’ involves brown envelopes stuffed full of $100 bills).
But to come out and say “we will have it” makes a mockery of the Brazilian law making process! If they “will” have alcohol sales, then why bother pushing it through the congress at all. The fact that the executive branch needs to “sway congress” inherently recognises the fact that congress could sway in either direction, that this is not a foregone conclusion.
Also, being right and being arrogant are not mutually exclusive – as I would arrogantly suggest that I have just proven! ;)
Weirdly Fifa insists that Alcohol is served at the World Cup while UEFA blanket bans it from the Champions League and Europa league, in the final in Hamburg a couple of years back me and my fellow Fulham fans had to spike our own drinks if we wanted booze.
Weird how two organisations, both similar, are impassioned in the opposite direction
Nice blog as always Mr LeMez
Thanks Dave! I gather some people put forward the argument that club football attracts a more fighty breed of supporter (you being the exception to that rule, naturellement), whereas national games attract the (relatively) less aggressive ‘family crowd’.
But even if there is some truth in that, I don’t believe that the difference is enough to justify, as you point out, such diametrically opposed policies. Seems to me that the people who have to deal with the fallout of football violence (police forces, governments) tend to be pro alcohol control.
Perhaps the difference between UEFA and FIFA is that UEFA, being more of a day-to-day organisation, has less power relative to national governments…?
If the event is not profitable for the host nation, and Fifa is as corrupt as some claim, then why host it?
The article below seems to offer a sober outlook on the matter.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/406843-money-makes-the-world-cup-go-round
In the end though I still think that The Fifa World Cup is a luxury item for the host country since the costs far outweigh the benefits. So, unless a nation has achieved decent levels of development in basic areas (schooling, sanitation, etc) hosting this event is irresponsible at best.
The Big L would agree with me BTW.
Ha ha! Is the guy in the wheelchair the Big L? Yeah, he would agree with you! ;)
That’s an interesting article and I think the World Cup is an interesting issue. It brings with it a bunch of intangibles which won’t show up so clearly on the balance sheet:
=> Assuming the world cup is a success, improved image of Brazil as a country (leading to more investment, tourism in future).
=> If Brazil wins it (never a bad bet) there’s the massive boost in morale of the population (not to mention the winnings!) – and countries always do better when they’re hosting the tournament (as an Englishman I know this only too well…) .
=> That article seemed to view new infrastructure as solely an expense – but, in theory, the investment in transport and improved security (etc) could have lasting benefits to Brazil.
I see your point about something like the World Cup being a luxury for the host nation, but I don’t think it’s necessarily a clear-cut bad decision. More like a gutsy gamble perhaps?
Oi Tom,
Kind of related – thought you might be interested to see this:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-24031317-brazil-wants-giant-christ-sculpture-on-primrose-hill.do
Can you imagine?!! I live just near here and while I love Christo in situ I am not sure about it overlooking NW1!
One more sleep and I see the real thing… !
R x
Ha ha, that is hilarious! It’ll never happen in a million years, but it’ll give everyone a chance to moan and bitch about everyone else’s religion, lack of religion or to say that it is political correctness gone mad! ;)
One more sleep? I thought you were coming 28th of Feb!?
I know! Someone on the news just know said ‘ok – well we should build a statue of Winston Churchill in Rio then!’ Bring on the crazies..
Well its one sleep here and one sort of on the plane (which I don’t count if its upright on an economy seat!). Leave 9.30pm tomorrow and arrive morning of 28th. Cannot come quick enough…. bjs
I meant to highlight the Feb part of that last sentence! I thought you were coming next month!
p.s. I am going to start a campaign for that Winston Churchill statue… ;)
I just re-read your message! No 28th January!!!! I just checked my itinerary as you gave me heart failure that I had booked the wrong month – but its def Sat 28th Jan!
Basically what happens when organizing an event like the WC is that everything is catered to suit that specific event. So you have to find out what was laid out for the event, and the cost, and compare that to what the local population really needs for long term well being. You get these all the items in these two distinct groups, and see how often the first coincides with the latter.
I totally agree with the report cited in the article below..
http://soccerlens.com/why-on-earth-do-countries-want-to-host-the-fifa-world-cup/55959/
The only advantage is a boost to morale, which past studies have revealed to carry on for 6 months after the tournament’s completion. BUT this increase does not translate to higher productivity up to the point of making up for the costs, neither does increase in tourist revenue. In other words the pattern does not last long enough for the event to be profitable. The wierd thing is that developed countries are the ones which lose less money when hosting the WC. I can only speculate that this is because they have the basic infrastructure laid out, plus are better at planning and avoiding corruption.
Of course all this should have been taken into consideration before bidding for this event. Unfortunately the research would have cut into the designated bureaucrat’s coffee breaks. Not to mention that the populist president (The Squid) who most wanted this thing thinks exactly like average folk: it will prove to the world that we can do things.
It only proves that you can’t set priorities.
BTW this is actually a very sad because if one ventures into a public hospital and asks how many people are there due to lack of proper sanitation, and how much this costs the public health system, plus costs in lower productivity (missed work days) and so forth then it might even be argued that hosting the WC is inhumane.
I think this is a very interesting discussion. When I heard that the World Cup was going to be in Brazil, I thought exactly what you thought: we have more important problems to solve, guys! But, when you think like that, you might as well abolish the departments of Culture and Sports of the government, because they are mere futilities when compared to the Health and Education departments, right? But people need these things to be happy, to enjoy life, to work well, to feel human and all those things. They need that to know their identities.
In Brazil, football is massively important. And when I say massively, think MASSIVELY. People look at footballers and see heroes. So let me tell a little tale:
In 1994, Brazil lived a very important moment. We suffered from hyperinflation and the attempts to make it go away had failed for the last decade. The inflation didn’t have anything to do with supply and demand anymore. It existed because people thought that there was gonna be inflation, so the raised their prices to cope with it. Lots of economical plans failed for lots of reasons. One of which was: people and the market didn’t believe in them.
Right, so in 1994 the Plano Real was developed and applied. It was a big moment, we changed currencies, we didn’t really have the IMF’s support… It was something! And the guy who coordinated it was actually counting on the Brazilian team to win so the Plan would have more chance of success. Because Brazilian people don’t get only happy when they win a football match, they also get hopeful, they cry, they think they are better people then. The economists planning the Real actually stopped important meeting to watch the games. The Plano Real worked and today we have normal inflation. Of course it didn’t only work because we won the World Cup, but one might say the championship had something to do with it.
Of course there are other reasons for a country to host the World Cup, but I think Tom’s already covered that. I just wanted to tell my little tale.
@ Manuela
“But, when you think like that, you might as well abolish the departments of Culture and Sports of the government, because they are mere futilities when compared to the Health and Education departments, right?”
Well, you don’t really need these departments because culture and sport is something inherent to human beings: they will do it anyways, and better than government. But that is another subject altogether.
The point is that there isn’t long term benefits from hosting the WC. What happens is that a population from a developing country, with their insecurities and so forth, are taxed to host an event that will benefit Fifa, and soccer. In return for subsidizing a sport and a federation they receive a brief feel good sensation: just a temporary fix without any long term benefits.
If you were to invest in music lessons for the youth – let’s say the Ministry of Culture was actually a private entity and did this correctly – then that child would have acquired a skill, and self esteem that is LASTING.
The World Cup , on the other side of the spectrum, only sells an illusion of well being – for an enormous price. This sensation is superficial and will soon disappear, leaving people, and that specific society the same way they were before; after squandering their financial resources.
Placar Final
Gritty FC : 5
CR Manuela e Tom : 1 ( for hosting the discussion)
BTW Have you read/heard this piece about the Plano Real?
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/10/04/130329523/how-fake-money-saved-brazil
Wow, in one sentence you do away with all governmental cultural funding! Because “they will do it anyways”! Ha ha, I’m guessing you’re not a fan of museums, art galleries, performance art (unless of course, it can generate measurable income equal to, or exceeding, that which is required to fund it?).
And in another sentence you assert that “there isn’t long term benefits from hosting the WC” – just like that! Well, it remains to be seen. The issues aren’t simple enough (sorry) to simply extrapolate from one country and one moment in time (say, South Africa last time round) to another.
Of course many of the schemes such as the pacification of favelas, transport improvement plans were already being implemented or at least planned, but perhaps the the World Cup and Olympics have provided (and will continue to provide) immovable deadline incentives and short-term cash injections that make the difference between projects stagnating on paper and actually getting pushed through to reality. Time will tell.
Finally, I have to say that your picture of Brazilians as morons who crave a world cup simply because of low self-esteem and stupidity is not only patronising but also wrong. People make arguments for and against these events in Brazil, just as in the UK and any other nation you care to mention.
“People make arguments for and against these events in Brazil, just as in the UK and any other nation you care to mention.”
I have not witnessed a debate where the against point of view is espoused. I don’t think this discussion even took place in manistream Brazilian media. I read the major newspapers and magazines and have not seen it. Have you? When Rio won the Olympics bid there were pro and against groups http://www.panorama.com.br/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=506:copa-do-mundo-2014-fifa-e-cbf-lucram-e-brasil-ter%C3%A1-preju%C3%ADzo&Itemid=11
Now why is that? It seems like the argument that hosting the event is, in itself, flawed is just a daydream. Yet data shows that hosting the WC is a not a safe investement at all.
“And in another sentence you assert that “there isn’t long term benefits from hosting the WC” – just like that! Well, it remains to be seen. The issues aren’t simple enough (sorry) to simply extrapolate from one country and one moment in time (say, South Africa last time round) to another. ”
All you can do is collect information from previous events, or events with the same characteristics, if they exist, and try to find a pattern. Plus add to that the estimates on corruption (corruption index) of the host nation. This data , as shown by the reports linked, indicate that hosting the WC is not cost beneficial. In conclusion this event is a risky bet, at best. I think it is irresponsible to put up this amount for things, which in time may (JUST MAY) reveal themselves to be cost beneficial. That is a whole lot of wishful thinking and I imagine that most people would not invest in a world cup if it involved their personal finances, their household budget. It is tax money though, so in the end it is all these things but people can’t make the connection it seems.
“Wow, in one sentence you do away with all governmental cultural funding!”
I am against funding which aims to “bring out the artist” in others. You don’t need to stimulate people, like Selaron, to paint and create. In Brazil many Ngo’s have popped up and grabbed government money from Ministries like Minc ( and many others) to “promote” the “artistic soul” of the “common and excluded masses”. The only thing they accomplished was to promote the Ngo’s memebers bank accounts. Plus they gave the whole segment a bad name, affecting and contaminating the good standing of Ngo’s that never asked for a dime of tax payer money, and always did a good job regardless.
Sorry. I meant to write:
“When Rio won the Olympics bid there were pro and against groups from other bidding cities lobbying for their postitions. In the case of Rio and Madrid only the pro-bid associations were present.”