July 6, 2000, saw the Fifa executive vote to decide the host of the 2006 World Cup, with England, Germany, South Africa, Morocco and Brazil as the candidates. Brazil withdrew before the voting, whilst Morocco and England were eliminated in the early rounds of voting. The final round saw Germany against South Africa, with the 24 Fifa delegates to vote either way. One, Oceania's Jack Dempsey, mysteriously abstained from the voting, which meant the event of a tie and a final casting vote from Fifa President Sepp Blatter, now not needed.
South Africa - on moral issues, and supported by Blatter on an idealistic crusade - was the favourite to bring the World Cup to the African continent for the very first time. Germany, whilst having a strong case with outstanding infrastructure and the romance of the first big event in the new unified Germany after the Berlin wall came down, had the fact of France98 being so recent as its main drawback.
One look on Blatter's face before he read the vote, told the story. Much like Olympic chief Samaranch's despair when Sydney won the Olympics ahead of his desired China, Blatter's expression had similar implications. Germany was awarded the hosting of the 2006 World Cup by one vote after Oceania President Charles Dempsey's absention from the voting in the final rounds seemingly railroaded South Africa. As directed by the Oceania executive committee, Dempsey was mandated to vote for South Africa if England - Oceania's first choice - were knocked out early in the voting. That they did, but Dempsey's personal decision amongst allegations of personal threats and monumental pressure from lobbyists stunned Fifa, and left their mooted idea of rotating World Cups around the confederations in tatters. In return for the African nations' support in gaining the Fifa presidency, Sepp Blatter was heavily committed to getting the World Cup to Africa, and would have made the casting vote in the case of the tie that there would have been had Dempsey voted as directed. But is Dempsey solely to blame?
An underlying theme amongst the voting - the objective of rotating World Cups - again highlighted the insignificance of Oceania as they were not even mentioned in the rotation. Amazing, for a fully fledged Fifa confederation. In that respect, is it any wonder Germany won? While the public face of Fifa promulgates the "world" in the world game, it still seems most of their executives are still very much traditionalist in thinking that football is still mainly a Euro/Latin phenomenon with their actions and decisions almost always favouring these areas. Since Australia qualified for the World Cup in 1974, teams in the Cup have doubled yet there is still no spot for not even one direct qualifier for Oceania. Asia gets their World Cup, yet their spots are reduced. South Africa, with Fifa president in support, is almost promised the World Cup, yet gets stiffed.
The Africans have every right to be aggrieved, and naturally feel betrayed, but lets not forget that there were twelve other Fifa members - which included the entire European bloc (8 votes) and the entire Asian bloc (4 votes) - that actually voted against South Africa. The lack of faith towards South Africa was made worst by the pledged support by the South American delegates, whose votes, made in return for African support in 2010 when Brazil hopes to host it, proved in the end only to make the voting close. Europe obviously voted patriotically, and the Asians voted the way they did as retribution for Blatter's removal of a World Cup spot. This wheeling and dealing behind the scenes is another reason why Fifa wants rotational World Cups. Countries should be awarded the cup on merit, not for polictical reasons and certainly not for closed-door bargaining that borders on bribery.
There was even talk that after Dempsey was entertained by UEFA president Johannson, he'd made his decision then and there to abstain. In fact, before the final voting, he actually did try to phone all members of the Oceania executive to get his decision fully authorised. Maybe Johannson promised he and his powerful UEFA execute would help push for any future Oceania directives if Dempsey abstained? Just think, if Oceania wanted their direct spot and Asia their extra spot, with UEFA as an ally, a combined Oceanic/Asian/Euro bloc would now have the majority in any future executive decisions. Voting for South Africa, whilst would no doubt gain African support, would not guarantee South American support, leaving nothing near a consensus, let alone a maority. And even if it did, this would still mean an undesired tied Fifa executive in any future vote. Dempsey may have just done what all the other confederation executives have done - look out for themselves - and if so, I am all for the subterfuge!
While Dempsey's claims of badgering have been dismissed by other delegates, there is now talk that his actions were revenge for Blatter's insistence that he resign from the Oceania presidency several years ago. Whatever his motives, I personally think Dempsey did the right thing in not succumbing to either party. Not only is it improper that he vote for a party that he originally did not intend to win and that it would have been tacit approval for the current and flawed bidding process, but it also highlighted the real culprit - the Fifa executive. Oceania did not vote against South Africa, Fifa did. Blame them. If they really wanted South Africa to host it, South Africa should have won easily. There should have been at least some Asian and European votes for South Africa - at least as a sign of Fifa's commitment to spreading the world game.
In the wash-up, Dempsey has resigned before he was pushed amongst anger from the entire region, including the NZ government. Also, Oceania executive rejected his motives as inadequate. New Zealand has been the source of South African and world wide anger. Australia's Basil Scarscella has intimated his desire to lead Oceania. The spread of the world game via the World Cup has been curtailed. After Spain, Italy and France, we have yet another World Cup in yet another boring, stereotypical European country. There is even talk of a possible re-vote given the fact that Oceania's desires were not put across. The Fifa executive - the ones that voted for Germany in the first place - are the only ones that can decide this, so that seems highly unrealistic. But have they made the right decision in the first place? Or is it just another slap in the face for the obviously minor confederations that, on a positive note, may actually now force Fifa to implement rotational World Cups, rather than just talk about it?
While I am all in favour of spreading the World Cup, I was never in favour of South Africa. Well, in fact, I was not in favour of Germany either. I'd have preferred Brazil because it has not been in South America since 1978, and that Brazil was the most interesting country to visit. Their reasons for withdrawal were probably similar those that affected South Africa's cause. SA's crime and security issues is a huge problem; this should not be under estimated. While taking it to Africa simply because it has never been there was compelling, South Africa relied too heavily on that fact as well as the perceived economic benefits generated and idealism in its promotion at almost the total expense of its logistical capabilities. While South Africa is probably the only country in Africa that could logistically host a World Cup, I - and possibly the Fifa executive too - don't think they are ready for it, yet. I certainly don't recall seeing any evidence of it in their promotion. At a technical and infrastructural level, Germany are miles ahead, and are in fact ostensibly ready right now. It is that area where SA failed. A campaign built more around logistical capabilities plus the sentimentality as a side issue may have proved more rewarding. Everything else should have very little impact in determining the host. Awarding SA the rights because it will help alleviate the 45% unemployment rate is ludicrous. May as well give it to Equatorial Guinea and my Socceroo Realm fans in Malabo - they're much worst off.
As the Fifa slogan says, it is all about what is good for the game. Spreading the game to Africa via the World Cup would increase the profile, but I hardly doubt it would drop from its high level as a result of SA not hosting it. Opening up Africa to the world is as much foolish idealism that China's Olympic bid was. Football is the number one sport in nearly all African countries and the magic of the World Cup will still captivate the public no matter where it is played. But to actually host an efficient and highly successful World Cup, that is another story. It is simply problematical that South Africa can achieve this at anywhere near the level that Germany can, or even merely achieve it successfully. They should not be using the World Cup as a mechanism for getting the country into order - it should already in order. Germany, for its part, only requires modernisation of several stadia to be fully ready for the Cup. Clearly, it is much more capable of hosting the World Cup and the Fifa execute, for whatever reasons, has, in my book, in this instance, done what is best for the game, and especially, the World Cup. Another four years won't hurt the Africans, and the forced over-haul of the flawed voting procedures should see all the confederations get a fair go. But then, again, that is really up to the Fifa executive and I am not holding my breath.
Footnote:
On August 3, 2000, the Fifa executive committee, somehow in their wisdom, have "unanimously
backed Blatter's suggestion to ensure that all continents be given an equal opportunity to
host the World Cup". That means rotational World Cups amongst the six
confederations. However, this is merely an in-principle decision and no exact
proposal has been worked out yet. Why a simple take-it-in-turns proposal somehow
seems so difficult to arrange is beyond me! The Europeans, strangely, because they
obviously voted for it, are not happy with only getting a World Cup every 24 years.
The inference is that somehow it will worked into the rotation that they get more
opportunities. And that would be at the expense of Oceania no doubt, the cynically
minded amongst us would suggest. You'd estimate that Africa will almost
certainly get 2010, with South American 2014 and then Oceania in 2018. Heck, I will
be 50 then! Again, as with anything Fifa, I am not holding my breath..... certainly
not for that long.