1

The Unethical Church that Governs a Beautiful Religion

Attention: FIFA, Domestic Footballing Associations, National Governments, Corporate Sponsors

RE: The need for FIFA’s Hierarchical Reform

Written by: Chris Thorsheim

2

Table of Contents

Executive

Summary……………………………………………………………………………....................................3

FIFA’s Mission…………………………………………………………………………………………….4

Current Crises………………………………………………………………………………………………4

Brazil……………………………………………………………………………………………….4

Qatar……………………………………………………………………………………………….5

Organizational Structure…………………………………………………………………………………....5

Executive Committee……………………………………………………………………................5

FIFA Congress…………………………………………………………………………..................7

Ethics Committee…………………………………………………………………………………..7

Independent Governance Committee……………………………………………………………....8

How it Happened: Two Presidents who Changed FIFA Forever…………………………………………..9

Joao Havelange……………………………………………………………………………………9

Sepp Blatter………………………………………………………………………………………10

Cash Cow……………………………………………………………………………………………….....11

Political Presence……………………………………………………………………………………….....12

FIFA v. Greece…………………………………………………………………………………....12

FIFA v. Poland………………………………………………………………………………..…..13

Reform………………………………………………………………………………………………….....14

External Pressure………………………………………………………………………………………….16

Political Pressure…………………………………………………………………………………16

Legal Pressure…………………………………………………………………………………....18

Sponsorship Pressure……………………………………………………………………………..19

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………………...…19

3

Executive Summary:

The World Cup has continuously been the one of the greatest sporting spectacles to bless

nations across the world. I say “bless” because for most nations around the world soccer is more

than just a sport. In John Oliver’s YouTube spoof of the World Cup in Brazil, a Brazilian woman

discusses how soccer truly is a religion. This highly anticipated event, occurring only once every

four years, attempts to unify each nation under the religion of soccer. Unfortunately, over the

past decade the World Cup has become shrouded in controversy. Why would such an amazing

event with the goal of unifying nations become subject to alleged criticism? Simple, the World

Cup is run by a corrupt international civil society organization called the Federation

Internationale de Football Association (FIFA).

FIFA has recently received worldwide pressure from multiple constituencies such as

sponsors, national governments, and the general public for their controversial selections of the

host countries for the 2018 World Cup to be held in Russia and the 2022 World Cup to be held in

Qatar. Furthermore, FIFA’s inability to address the human rights issues occurring in Qatar have

contributed to the negative perception of their organization. This report will analyze how the

organization has become increasingly corrupt since its origins. It will highlight the current crises

occurring and how these crises have shaped FIFA’s development as an organization. Finally, the

paper will advise FIFA with possible solutions for reforming their corrupt hierarchical structure

and policies. A further goal is to allow these concepts to resonate with constituencies who able to

influence change.

4

FIFA’s Mission:

The Federacion Internationale de Football, established in 1904, has become the world’s

most dominant football regulating power. The organization acts as the governing body of

football dedicated to improving the rules of the game, hosting worldwide events to unite nations

across the world, and enforcing disciplinary action. (FIFA) However, they believe that their

responsibilities surpass merely the development of the game. Many of FIFA’s initiatives claim to

protect human right and foster international relationships. Specifically, they outline their mission

as a civil society organization asserting that they “have a duty to improve the lives of young

people and their surrounding communities, to reduce the negative impact of their activities, and

to make the most they can out of the positives”(FIFA). It is no question that FIFA’s clear

deontological goals have not been fulfilled over the past decade. The accessibility of information

and societies’ elevated commitment to improving human rights have encouraged people to start

investigating the corrupt nature of FIFA as a non-profit, civil society organization.

Current Crisis:

Brazil:

The previous criticism about the World Cup held in Brazil in 2014, along with the

controversial selection of the future World Cups to be held in Russia and Qatar, have put FIFA in

a negative global spotlight. The 2014 Brazil World Cup was accompanied by riots across

numerous cities in Brazil. Brazilian citizens were frustrated with the Brazilian government

allocating billions of dollars to the World Cup. FIFA addresses that Brazil spent the equivalent of

15 billion U.S dollars in preparation for the global event.(FIFA) Just a year before opening

kickoff, the Rio de Janiero’s mayor Eduardo Paes publicly asserted that, “The country should

5

have seized the opportunity to invest in public services-health care, education, transport…

(Wilkinson 108)” In response to the rioting and these human rights claims, FIFA president Sepp

Blatter responds, “I can understand people are not happy, but they should not use football to

make their demands heard”(Wilkinson 108). FIFA was the real president of Brazil during this

period. They neglected the social, economic, and political problems at hand, completely

neglecting their mission as a civil society organization.

Qatar:

The selection of the 2022 World Cup to be held in Qatar received backlash from multiple

constituencies such as sponsors, national governments, and news stations. Further speculation

seemed to indicate that the bidding process was rigged. Several members on the executive

committee of FIFA were accused of bribery and corruption. The leading perpetrator behind the

alleged bribery is Mohammed Bin Hammam who was running to be FIFA president (Malliris

2013). Right after he was accused of bribery, he left the organization claiming that he had not

bribed officials in securing Qatar as the host country. Hammam was not the only FIFA executive

surrounded by bribery accusations. There have been four other FIFA members accused of

bribery just over the past several years (Malliris 2013).

The alleged bribery surrounding the World Cup in Qatar is not the only reason why FIFA

is currently under negative spotlight. Workers in Qatar have been battling brutal working

conditions and receiving inadequate pay in their efforts to prepare for the World Cup in 2022.

Amnesty International, a non-profit organization committed to the protection of human rights,

has produced a report highlighting the horrors taking place in Qatar. From August 2012 to

August 2013, the population of Qatar has risen 10.5% (Amnesty International 2013). An influx

of migrant Nepalese and Indian workers have been a large factor behind this population increase.

6

The construction firms employed by FIFA exploit the migrant workers by promising higher

salaries than they plan on paying. Often, their low salaries are withheld for months at a time.

Why won’t migrant workers leave their employers? Their employers confiscate their passports

upon entering into a contract. Migrant workers are not able to leave the country without

obtaining their passport from their employers (Amnesty International 2013). Sepp Blatter has

been confronted about the exploitation of migrant workers, but they have not intervened.

Furthermore, workers are subject to overly-excessive work hours and insubstantial safety

standards. There have already been fifteen Nepalese migrant workers who have died working to

construct the stadiums for the World Cup (Malliris 2013). The International Trade Union

Confederation forecasts that there will be around four thousand deaths upon the completion of

FIFA’s project (Malliris 2013). This clearly means that there is something wrong with the safety

standards of their current construction practices. However, FIFA refuses to believe that there is

anything wrong with their current construction procedure. Finally, workers are provided

inadequate, unsustainable rooming arrangements (Amnesty International 2013). It is no secret

that Qatar’s summers are brutally hot. Temperatures reach almost 120 degrees Fahrenheit. The

World Cup workers do not receive air conditioning or fans in their housing accommodations.

Most of the time they have to sleep on the roof of their dwellings.

Organizational structure:

Executive Committee:

The corrupt nature of FIFA arises from their flawed organizational structure. Initially,

FIFA’s organizational structure included an executive committee, a congress, and multiple

subcommittees. FIFA’s executive committee currently consists of the FIFA president, eight vice-

presidents, and 15 members that meet to address numerous agendas whether it be presidential

7

reports or individual confederation reports.(FIFA) The members selected to be in the Executive

Committee are picked from the six international confederations: CONMEBOL, UEFA, AFC,

CAF, CONCACAF, and Oceania. (Wilkinson 29) The executive branch and the president do not

report to any external board of directors.

FIFA Congress:

FIFA Congress meets once or twice annually to stage world footballing events and vote

on the FIFA president. Congress consists of the 208 national member associations that are apart

of FIFA. These usually are the independent national footballing bodies for each nation. Each

association has the ability to vote on the president. The candidate who receives at least two-thirds

of the vote will be crowned the FIFA president. This selection process causes an evident

problem. Representatives from each national association can easily be bribed by presidential

candidates.

Ethics Committee:

The most recent addition to the FIFA hierarchy is FIFA’s independent ethics committee.

The FIFA ethics committee was created in 2004 to help critique FIFA’s questionable endeavors.

It is composed of both an investigative chamber and adjudicatory chamber who played vital roles

in creating FIFA’s code of ethics. The investigatory committee’s main role is to “investigate

potential breaches of provisions of this code on its own initiative and ex officio at its full and

independent discretion”(FIFA). The adjudicatory chamber will subsequently draft a report on the

breach of the code of ethics if they feel like the ethics code has been broken. Article three is the

most influential aspect of the ethical code. It states that officials must always act with integrity,

officials are not able to exploit their position for personal financial gain, and that they must abide

to ethical objectives and mission of FIFA. (FIFA) The ethics committee has been largely

8

uninfluential in their investigatory processes. Their major accomplishment has been banning

FIFA president nominee, Mohammed Bin Hammam from his continued membership in the FIFA

executive committee.

Independent Governance Committee:

The Ethics Committee is responsible for investigating and punishing corruption that takes

place within FIFA. They do not propose solutions for reform. In 2011, Sepp Blatter decided to

create an “independent” governance committee” to help oversee effective reform. The head of

the IGC is corruption expert and professor, Mark Pieth, from the University of Basel. The

committee is comprised of Transparency International members who specialize in combating

corporate corruption. The unique aspect of this committee is its’ independence from FIFA.

However, a Swiss newspaper revealed that chairmen head, Mark Pieth, had been paid $128,000

by FIFA to prepare a scoping document on reform, prior to his acceptance of the role. (Pielke)

Shortly after this revelation, six out of twelve Transparency International members revealed that

they too had been compensated by FIFA. (Pielke) These compensation packages were not

disclosed by FIFA. The IGC was supposed to be completely independent from FIFA. Mark

Pieth’s scoping paper contained an elaborate plan for FIFA hierarchical reform in 2011. Just a

year later while working with the IGC, he developed another paper which contained similar

reforms at a much less demanding level. He urged Sepp Blatter to “not pick cherries”(Pielke) in

adopting these reforms. Blatter snidely replied, “Even if Professor Pieth says we shall cherry-

pick, we cannot take the whole tree. It is impossible to take the tree and have all the cherries

down”(Pielke). What is the purpose of the IGC if Blatter handpicks the reforms he deems

necessary for the organization. There is clearly no current hierarchical entity capable of

overshadowing the FIFA president.

9

How it Happened: The Two Presidents who Changed FIFA Forever:

Joao Havelange:

The year 1974 proved to be the catalyst for FIFA’s corrupt nature. The President leading up to

the FIFA president selection in 1974 was Englishmen Sir William Rous. Rous was completely

oblivious the changing world around him. He was living in a post-colonialism period where

third-world countries wanted to be represented in the World Cup. The 1966 World Cup featured

only two teams from Africa and Asia. The underrepresentation of these nations stimulated unrest

political unrest. Future president and Brazilian native, Joao Havelange, recognized the

underrepresentation of the southern hemisphere and made an alliance with the Asian, African,

and South-American countries. Out of the 122 votes on FIFA’s election day in 1974, Havelange

won the presidency with a score of 68 to 52 votes. All 37 votes from African entities went to

Havelange. (Tomlinson 59)

Havelange did come through with his promises. He decentralized the power of European

nations that dominated the World Cup. (Tomlinson 63) He was responsible for the

internationalization of the game of soccer. However, with the internationalization of the game of

soccer, came the commercialization of the game of soccer. Havelange took over at the helm of

FIFA at a time where FIFA’s finances were quite negligible. By the end of his reign in 1998,

FIFA had almost four billion dollars in reserves. (Tomlinson) He completely changed the goals

of FIFA. Havelange was described as a “football magnate who combined the qualities of far-

sightedness and openness, an entrepreneur in body and soul” who managed FIFA as a

“proprietor”(Tomlinson 66) rather than a private organization. Havelange’s previous financial

background allowed him to capitalize on worldwide interest in the World Cup. To generate

startup funds, he persuaded Coca-Cola to sponsor FIFA. 1976 and 1978 proved to be the most

10

crucial years in FIFA’s history. In 1978, Coca-Cola paid FIFA $8,300,000 to have exclusive

marketing rights in the World Cup. Furthermore, Havelange allowed the European Broadcasting

Union and the International Radio and Television Organization to broadcast the 1976 FIFA

World Cup Finals for a combined fee of $25,000,000.(Tomlinson 89) Just eleven years later, he

proposed a lengthy partnership with the television industry. The rights to televise the World

Cups held in 1990, 1994, and 1998 were sold for $340,000,000. Havelange described FIFA’s

relationship with the television industry as mutual beneficiaries. FIFA was making money and

the television companies were getting millions of viewers across dozens of countries. Although

FIFA was supposed to be considered a non-profit, Havelange argued that these superfluous funds

would propel FIFA into the 21st century. He created a monopolistic enterprise rather than a non-

profit. Before his resignation as president in 1998, he made a deal for the television rights of the

2006 World Cup to be held in Germany. The Executive Committee of FIFA had no opinion in

this deal. David Will, vice-president of FIFA at the time, comments that the executive committee

needed “to be properly chosen, and not have committees packed with pay-offs”(Tomlinson 67).

The Executive Committee did not even see the final contract. It was signed by Havelange

independently. Havelange started FIFA’s era of seceding to market forces, proposing bribes, and

giving out power to people who sympathize with the profit-motive behind world football. He

hand-picked his trained successor, Sepp Blatter, to continue his legacy.

Sepp Blatter:

Current FIFA president, Sepp Blatter, followed the footsteps of Havelange. Sepp Blatter and

Havelange were constantly scheming during the campaign process. Blatter succeeded in winning

the next two campaigns in 1998 and 2002. The day after he won in 2002, the Kenyan Footballing

Federation thanked Havelange for paying for their traveling expenses for a regional tournament

11

in Rwanda, clearly buying their vote for Blatter. (Tomlinson 74) The UEFA president Johansson

and loser of the FIFA presidency in 2002 comments on this gesture exclaiming, “I would never

again go for the FIFA presidency. I will never engage myself in such dirty business”(Tomlinson

74). Blatter figured out how to keep people happy. He would approach the uninfluential

members within FIFA, who still maintained a vote, and would pay them significant bribes. After

his re-election in 2002, Blatter went on to modify FIFA committees. He gave those who

supported him positions of power and negated those who did not, putting them in lackluster

positions with little influence. He also suggested that each member on the Executive Committee

should be paid $50,000. The revenues received from sponsors and the television industry

continue to grow. In the 2010 World Cup, FIFA made around 3.5 billion dollars and profited 631

million dollars. (Tomlinson 45)

Cash Cow:

FIFA has developed a negative stereotype of becoming a cash cow since these two

presidents came to dominate FIFA. However, this stereotype can be considered a valid label. The

growth in viewership, attendance, and popularity in the World Cup allows FIFA to make money

without needing a further business strategy. Global companies are willing to pay large sums of

money to be one of the acclaimed FIFA sponsors. The sponsorship will allow the company to

globally advertise their products or services for the most viewed event in the world. FIFA has so

much leverage when it comes to bargaining with their global sponsors. FIFA’s major, current

sponsors include: Visa, Hyundai, Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, and Adidas. The recent allegations of

bribery have caused unrest among the sponsors. Coca-Cola has addressed that they have full

confidence in the Ethics Committee to resolve the scandals.(Sebastian) Most of these sponsors

have decided to speak publicly about FIFA because they want to maintain a positive global

12

image. They also want to have more leverage when discussing the final sponsorship fee they will

pay for the World Cup. Despite these sponsorship concerns, FIFA remains unimpressed. They

know that many global companies would love to be one of the major sponsors at the World Cup.

It provides sponsors with unparalleled worldwide publicity.

Political Presence:

FIFA v. Greece:

FIFA’s power transcends commercial governance. They have unlimited power in the political

realm as well. National governments have consistently yielded to the demands of FIFA. There

have been two major occurrences over the past three decades that have solidified FIFA’s

influential political presence. The first rivalry develops between FIFA and Greece. In the early

1990’s, the Greek government “aimed to update governance structures in the face of sport

commercialization and scandals related to match fixing”(Garcia and Meier). The proposed

legislation would have an immediate impact by randomizing referee selection, rather than

invoking a voting process. FIFA wasn’t fond of the government’s proposed reforms. They

threatened to kick out the Greece’s national football federation, the Hellenistic Football

Federation, from participating in worldwide footballing events. The Greek government

immediately dropped the proposed legislation. In 2004, the need for stricter sporting governance

in Greece once again highlighted FIFA’s dominance. The Greek government wanted to make

changes to their National Sports Act. The government commanded national federations to

change their current statutes, including the election process, in less than six months’ time. The

president of the Hellenistic Football Federation, Vasilios Gagatsis, was nervous that he was not

going to be re-elected. (Garcia and Meier) The HFF did not abide by these new election terms to

which the government refused to provide state funding for the HFF. Gagatsis contacted FIFA in

13

an effort to regain dominance. FIFA attacked the Greek government demanding that they throw

out the new legislation. The Greek government’s refusal to remove current legislation resulted in

the suspension of the HFF from FIFA’s member association. Thus, the Greek government faced

a multitude of political pressure from FIFA. Only eight days after the suspension, the Greek

government decided to rescind the legislation and comply with FIFA’s demands. (Garcia and

Meier)

FIFA v. Poland

FIFA vs. Poland is another case that highlights FIFA’s political dominance. The national

association of Poland, the Poland Football Association, was receiving criticism from Poland’s

government. There was speculation that numerous Poland officials were receiving bribes and

engaging in match-fixing. (Garcia and Meier) The Minister of Sport has the ability to suspend

corrupt sporting organizations. The Minister can also negate public funding for the organization

if he feels like they aren’t complying with ethical practices. In 2007, the government demanded

that the PFA address the bribery accusations occurring within their organization. When they

didn’t take the government seriously, they were suspended for not complying with legal

practices. FIFA came to the PFA’s rescue. They promised to expel Poland from the 2010 World

Cup and cancel their upcoming qualifying matches. They further demanded that the minster of

sport be removed from supervising the PFA by writing a letter to the Polish Prime Minister.

Polish Prime Minister responded to FIFA’s imperatives by confronting the PFA. He argued that

“You cannot supervise the fight against corruption and hooliganism if you break the law

yourself”(Garcia and Meier). The PFA refused to admit these claims. The Polish government

seceded to the demands of FIFA, just like Greece had done previously. They feared being

suspended from the World Cup. It is clear that even national governments have no power over

14

their own national footballing organizations. If national governments have no power to address

the corruption in their own footballing associations, they definitely have no jurisdiction to

challenge FIFA for their corrupt practices. FIFA has an unhindered power in defending its

autonomy as an organization. They have the ability to compete with and challenge political

figures. FIFA is the private conqueror unchallenged by any political authorities.

Reform:

It can be seen throughout the past regime of Havelange and the current regime of Blatter

that the FIFA presidents have unlimited jurisdiction over the Executive Committee. FIFA made a

step in the right direction with the creation of the IGC. However, the IGC has not been an

effective stimulus in providing hierarchical reform. Therefore, FIFA should have an independent

board of directors that have the ability to veto decisions that the President and Executive

Committee decide on. This Board of Directors can be similar to that of a Board of Directors that

governs a financial company. Although FIFA is a private non-profit organization, many of their

goals coincide with financial entities. To put into context what this Board of Directors would do,

it is important to outline the functions of a Board of Directors. The Board of Directors is

responsible for making decisions in regards to the shareholders, determining the compensation

packages of executives, and monitoring where money is being spent. As mentioned previously,

FIFA outlines in their mission statement that they have a passionate dedication to protecting

human rights. Their actions have continuously impacted various constituencies. Therefore, the

Board of Directors would make the final decision as to whether FIFA’s decision will threaten the

rights of those impacted. For example, the Board of Directors would have had an immediate

influence in on the selection of the World Cup in Qatar. The current system of selecting the host

country for the World Cup is flawed. National associations engage in a bidding process to

15

determine who will succeed in hosting the World Cup. These member associations prepare the

necessary bidding documents by following FIFA’s bidding manual. The members of the

Executive Committee vote on who should be the host country based on the scoping documents

prepared by each country. If there is a tie at the end of the bidding process, the FIFA president

has the final word on who hosts the World Cup. This process is extremely susceptible to bribery

and corruption. It is highlighted in the selection of the two upcoming World Cups.

The selection of the 2018 and 2022 World Cups have generated extreme controversy

because of the bidding process. It is hard to believe that Qatar’s selection surpassed the likes of

the United States and European powers. The temperatures reaching 122 degrees Fahrenheit are

not even conducive to playing the game of soccer! The pièce de résistance was Michael Garcia’s

resignation from the FIFA ethics committee in 2014. Upon until the announcement of the

selection of these two host countries, the FIFA ethics committee was tasked with the project of

determining whether the selection process was legitimate. Michael Garcia, an American lawyer

in the investigatory chamber, was outraged with the adjudicatory chamber’s decision to proceed

with holding the World Cup in these two countries. (ESPN) He believed the head of the

adjudicatory chamber, Joachim Eckert, made a terrible decision after reading his 430 page

investigation. Garcia went to the FIFA’s subcommittee of appeals and was rejected. He resigned

after receiving this denial. He argued that no “independent governance committee can change the

culture of an organization”(ESPN). He also expressed his loss of faith in the “independence” of

the FIFA ethics committee. Therefore, it is essential to have an unbiased board of directors that

makes the final judgment on decisions like the selection of the host country for the World Cup.

They can make sure the selection lives up to FIFA’s mission and that the selection is void of

bribery.

16

The Board of Directors would be responsible for managing the compensation of the

president of FIFA, the executive committee, and the numerous subcommittees. It will also be

imperative for them to disclose the salary figures of each of these entities. Mark Pieth of the IGC

has also suggested for FIFA to reveal the compensation associated with each entity. (Davis and

Capello) Pielke estimates that Blatter makes between $5 million and $8 million a year which is

absurdly high for running a non-profit. (Pielke) It is imperative that the Board of Directors

manages the finances of FIFA, so that they are able to know where the money is being allocated.

The FIFA president is selected every 4 years, similar to that of the United States. A FIFA

president can serve for an unrestricted period of time. Havelange served for 24 years and Blatter

has served for almost 17 years. FIFA presidents should only have the potential to serve for a

maximum of eight years. They should only be able to be re-elected once. This will provide FIFA

with new outlook, suggestions, and a higher potential for reform. This is why our government is

organized the way it is. A new leader results a different approach to addressing and solving

problems. FIFA would be organized more like a democracy and less like a dictatorship, which is

what it resembles right now.

External Pressure:

Political Pressure:

The current member associations within FIFA are subject to FIFA’s procedural statutes.

Therefore, national governments have little power in implementing changes in their own member

associations. This was seen in the cases of Poland and Greece. Their respective national

governments were unable to provide stricter standards for the Poland Football Association and

Hellenistic Football Federation. The FIFA statutes are extremely difficult to change. To change

17

or overrule a statute, there needs at least three quarters of the vote from all member associations.

The Executive Committee also retains the power to reverse the decision if it was of extreme

importance. (Pielke) How does FIFA have so much leverage in making these decisions? Simple,

“FIFA statutes create a disincentive for national governments to exercise any supervision of

FIFA, as they allow the organization to suspend national football associations for government

interference”(Pielke). When the national governments are interfering, FIFA threatens to suspend

or remove the member association from FIFA. This means the nation would not be able to

compete in the World Cup which could cause unrest from national citizens. FIFA has the power

to act as a universal government, with final jurisdiction over what nations can play in the World

Cup. Therefore, national governments need more power in sanctioning FIFA. There are two

possible solutions to this problem. First, member associations can form a union against FIFA.

The difficulty in this option would be convincing those member associations who do engage in

bribery in their domestic leagues. These national footballing bodies would be reluctant to join or

defend the union in fear of reformation.

The more viable option would be for national governments to become more effective in

making sure FIFA is abiding by their mission statement. In 2014, the United States House of

Representatives expressed their concerns with the labor practices taking place in Qatar in

preparation for the 2022 FIFA World Cup. After outlining the horrors earlier in the paper, it is

obvious that national governments should be putting pressure on FIFA to resolve the human

rights violations taking place in Qatar. The United States government has made strides by

addressing their concerns. The most significant of these concerns lies with the migrant worker

deaths and the kalafa system that dominates infrastructure production for the World Cup. The

House of Representatives calls on United States employers to adhere to proper working

18

condition standards, calls on the Qatari government to propose new legislation to be more

accountable for human rights issues, and calls on FIFA themselves to challenge Qatar to ban the

modern day slavery that is happening in preparation for the global event that is supposed to unify

nations across the world. There needs to be more pressure applied to FIFA by national

governments because of FIFA’s inability to abide by their mission statement.

Legal Pressure:

In 2002, Sepp Blatter was challenged by eleven out of 24 executive members in Swiss Courts for

allocating FIFA funds illegally to other confederations and a former referee. However, Sepp

Blatter was not convicted of any fraud. The Swiss Courts believed there was a lack of evidence

to prove that Blatter was guilty. There have been numerous murmurings among the ethics

committee to investigate Blatter again, but to this date there has been no real progress. Garcia

was the one who publicly expressed that the ethics committee was going to challenge him in

December of 2014, but it never happened. (ESPN) Blatter has definitely committed his fair share

of crimes while in FIFA, nobody can doubt that. However, he always is able to squeak by

unaffected by legal procedures. A possible way to address the corruption in FIFA is to sue the

organization as a whole. A professor at Oxford, Stephen Weatherill, comments, “It is

intimidatingly difficult to challenge powerful sports bodies, individuals have…and so has the

[European] Commission, and it is not at all the case that sports structures which have endured a

great many years can confidently predict a long life in the future"(Pielke). It can be possible to

tackle FIFA as an organization, but it needs to come from another powerful organization or

government capable of a lengthy, expensive court procedure.

Sponsorship pressure:

19

Sponsors should commit to exerting more pressure on FIFA. Adidas has been a sponsor

since the start of Havelange’s presidency. They were the ones who help started the

commercialization of football. It is unlikely for them to revoke their sponsorship, especially with

the likes of Nike craving a more influential World Cup presence. However, two major sponsors

of previous World Cups, Sony and Emirates, have recently decided to drop their sponsorship

with FIFA because of the lack of transparency involved in the bribery investigation for the

selection of the 2018 and 2022 World Cups. (Futterman) Sponsors should be able to have a lot

more leverage in their contracts. If FIFA is not abiding by their own mission as an organization,

these sponsors should have the ability to revoke funding until issues have been resolved.

Conclusion:

Football is a religion to me just like most of the world. How long is it going to take for

our Church to become ethical? How many more controversial World Cups will occur before real

change occurs? How much longer will Sepp Blatter run his dictatorship? Suggested reforms have

been proposed by numerous constituencies. It is time to for FIFA to finally put them into action.

If they won’t, external governments and organizations need to challenge FIFA publicly to help

institute change.

20

Works Cited

Balser, Brittney. (2013). “The Structure and Policies of FIFA”. Retrieved 3/30, 2015 from

aaaahttp://sites.duke.edu/wcwp . Davis, Noah, and Capello Juan. "Noah Davis and Juan C. Cappello Debate: Does FIFA's aaaaaCorruption Hurt the Beautiful Game?" Columbia University Press, 1 Apr. 2014. Web. 1 aaaaaMay 2015.

ESPN STAFF. “World Cup Bid Investigator Michael Garcia Quits FIFA Ethics Committee.” aaaaaESPNFC.com. ESPN, 14 Dec. 2014. Web. 06 May. 2015.

"FIFA.com - The Official Website of the FIFA World Cup™." FIFA.com - Fédération aaaaaInternationale De Football Association (FIFA). Web. 5 May 2015.

Frawley, Stephen, and Daryl Adair. Managing the Football World Cup. Palgrave Macmillan, aaaaa2014. Print.

Futterman, Matthew, and Joshua Robinson. "Visa and McDonald's among several Sponsors aaaaaConcerned Over World Cup Probe; Following Sony's Decision to Drop FIFA Sponsorship, aaaaaVisa Says it is 'Troubled' by Recent Controversy." Wall Street Journal (Online)Nov 27 aaaaa2014. ProQuest. Web. 7 May 2015 .

Garcia, Borja, and Henk-Erik Meier. "The Power of FIFA Over National Governments: A New aaaaaActor in World Politics." Loughborough University Institutional Repository. FLACSO and aaaaaISA, Dec. 2014. Web. 1 May 2015.

Malliris, Christina. (2013) “The Dark Side of FIFA: Selected controversies and the future of aaaaaaccountability in the organization”. Retrieved 3/30, 2015 from http://sites.duke.edu/wcwp.

Pielke, Roger. "‘FIFA Paid $88.6m in Salaries in 2014. We Can Guesstimate Blatter’s Take at aaaaa$6m+.”University of Colorado, 20 Mar. 2015. Web. 07 May 2015.

Pielke, Roger. “How can FIFA be Held Accountable?” University of Colorado, 19. Dec. 2012. aaaaaWeb. 30 Mar. 2015.

Sebastian, Joseph. "FIFA Sponsors Break Silence Over Qatar World Cup Row." Marketing Week aaaaa(Online) Jun 09 2014ProQuest.Web. 7 May 2015 .

“The Dark Side of Migration: Spotlight on Qatar’s Construction Sector Ahead of the World aaaaaCup.” Amnesty International Publications, 2013. Web. 30 Mar. 2015.

Tomlinson, Alan. FIFA (Fédération Internationale De Football Association): The Men, the aaaaaMyths and the Money. New York: Taylor and Francis, 2014. Print.

21