Originally published on the CGS blog on July 9, 2014.
FIFA, and subsequently the World Cup, has received criticism from many for its corruption, human rights violations, and the problems it has caused for many residents of host countries. After writing about this last week, I admit that I was left with some deep-seated resentment of FIFA, and the World Cup by association. Having never been much of a soccer fan, I had no problem boycotting the games, taking what I felt to be some sort of moral high ground.
But then I heard about how women in Iran were openly watching the Iran-Argentina game in public alongside men, not only to show support for their country but also to protest a law banning women from entering most sporting events. As a woman of Persian descent, I was instantly filled with pride; I was also struck by the role the World Cup had played in this small but significant event.
Soccer brings the world together; there is no doubt about that. And since it is the “UN of Football,” FIFA has the power and influence to make incredible, important changes. In what ways has it already done this, and in what ways can it improve?
Just recently, FIFA announced that it “will compensate 331,000 tonnes of CO2 (251,000 of its own emissions and 80,000 from the fans who participated in [a] free contest) through four certified low-carbon development projects spread across Brazil.” This is just one of the many steps FIFA and Brazil have taken to reduce the carbon footprint of the World Cup, which include:
- Achieving LEED certification for green buildings for stadiums
- Installing solar panels on stadiums to generate renewable energy
- Ensuring that waste management in stadiums and other venues will be dealt with according to the new waste law and will promote recycling in collaboration with local cooperatives
This falls in line with the organization’s commitment to the environment, which it showed back in 2006 by moving its headquarters to a zero-emission facility.
And yet there are still areas in which FIFA falls short. While it will be investigating the use of black-face by German fans at the Germany-Ghana game, reassuring the world that it has “zero tolerance of any form of discrimination,” FIFA has failed to step up in other instances of bigotry. Most significant of these is Mexico and Brazil fans’ use of a homophobic chant, which FIFA declared was “not considered insulting in this specific context,” garnering much criticism. (Right after these incidents however, I did hear about FIFA broadcasting “#stopracism” on the stadium monitors. It isn’t exactly discipline, but it’s a step in the right direction.)
But FIFA’s inability to discipline is not for lack of power. During the 2010 World Cup in South Africa, “The FIFA World Cup Courts” were formed, and began dispensing justice at a rapid pace; the most well known example of this is the case of two Zimbabweans who “robbed some foreign journalists on a Wednesday, were arrested on the Thursday, and began 15-year jail sentences on the Friday.” The extensive cost to South Africa to run these courts, the harsh sentences for petty offenses, and the literal changing of the South African constitution are concerning enough; the ease with which a private entity did all this is downright alarming. And yet, just think of how the world would look if war tribunals had this much power.
FIFA clearly has the potential to make significant changes, but, at the end of the day, its own self-interest prevents it from doing any real good. In preparation for the current World Cup, FIFA successfully lobbied the Brazilian government to reverse a law that banned the sale of beer at football games. The bill, which lays out rules for the World Cup, is not ironclad, as it merely “does not mention any restriction on the sale of alcohol.” Nonetheless, it represents the immense power of FIFA to alter host countries’ laws when it serves its financial interests (Budweiser is a major sponsor of FIFA).
It’s incredible to think of how this power could be used to positively shape the world. Climate change regulations? Improving, but not dramatically changing, the court systems of less democratic countries? Earmarking World Cup profits for public assistance programs? Or (more realistically) leaving current laws, such as banning beer at football stadiums, untouched in order to support public safety?
A part of me will always remain critical and cynical when it comes to FIFA, as the organization has a long way to go before fulfilling its mission statement of “caring about society and the environment.” And yet, I remain hopeful that there will continue to be small victories on the way to institutional reform. In the end, it’s simply a question of which team FIFA wants to play for: itself or the world?
