There may be many who are disappointed by the re-election of Sepp Blatter to the presidency of Fifa in Zurich, but few will have been surprised. The 79-year-old Swiss man has held power and, with it, control of the purse strings for nearly two decades, and during that time has been astute in cultivating the loyalty of a large portion of his electorate.
Fifa generated €2 billion in revenues last year, more than the economies of a significant number of the countries whose associations voted in the election.
That much of that money is made available for distribution to member associations, some of which derive the majority of their income from the international federation, is one of the most positive aspects of Fifa’s work. The extent to which it has been used for the purposes of political patronage has, however, cast a long shadow over the organisation.
Poor governance and a lack of accountability over how funds are spent at local level has repeatedly led to problems, but there has been an unavoidable sense that it is part of an understanding that suits both sides. Those who run Fifa, Blatter in particular, reap lavish rewards for their efforts, while the power to vote on the destination of major football tournaments or to award the major commercial contracts associated with them have provided some with the opportunity to enrich themselves to an outrageous extent.
Blatter, who has acknowledged the existence of this culture when he previously served as Fifa general secretary, has repeatedly claimed that during his presidency things were changing. But the decision to award the 2022 World Cup to Qatar added to the widespread scepticism. This week's arrests made the suggestion seem laughable.
Through all of this, Fifa, along with its various constituent organisations, continues to receive a huge amount of public funding whether in the form of tax exemptions for World Cup profits and other earnings, or direct grants to national or locals organisations.
Despite this, its leadership has steadfastly resisted outside supervision or accountability, describing it as political interference in its affairs. It acts as if it believes Fifa to be above the law, and for the most part it seems to have succeeded in ensuring that it operates outside of it. And so there has not even been the flimsy safeguard of “light-touch” regulation, there has been no meaningful regulation at all.
Blatter’s re-election suggests that a majority of those with power within the organisation has no desire to see any of that change. The tame expressions of concern from the organisation’s multinational sponsors do not provide much by way of encouragement either.
The intervention of the US and Swiss authorities offers real hope that the high-level corruption that has afflicted the game is about to be tackled. Those who claim to love football must abandon the pretence that the sport can ever effectively police itself.