Manuel Vazquez I
By Manuel Vazquez Iñirrartu
I read in Sunday’s edition of the Times an article on a formal investigation against a person accused of influencing people with no voting power within the Fifa and others who did cast a ballot for them to vote for no other potential host countries as official venues for the 2018 and 2022 football World Cup other than Russia and Qatar, respectively.
I link this story to a long roster of vague news items is appearing in the British press on the subject. The UK lost the race to host the event and it is well known that it wanted to host the World Cup once again, upholding the old idea that the event constituted what, prior to it being given its current name, was the “soft power” of large and small powers.
From ancient Greece to the present day, including Nazi Germany and many friendlier places, the organisation of big sporting events has been a tool used to control social humour, plus a great showcase for the host countries.
And, in modern times, the opposition and enemies of these countries have also used them to criticise the powers that be.
However, in this particular case, far from generating certainties, this nteenth article on the same subject and the careful “in crescendo” with which they have been presented, make me harbour doubts.
The first is the fact that an investigation on the vote of an international organisation be carried out by just one nation — without any additional interest shown by third parties. All stories I’ve read related to the topic have originated in the UK.
It is at least remarkable that no other articles have appeared anywhere in the world, as if the British press had privileged access to sources that chose them as innocent spokesmen.
The second is that these stories refer to a vote in which the nations chosen to host the World Cup have been Russia and Qatar, and, so far, not a single reference has been made of Russia while there is, yes, at least a striking overabundance of references to a little, rich Arab country.
No one in his right mind can believe that a serious reporter will only be dealing with the weaker of the two countries voted at the same time and by the same people, without casting even a light pall of suspicion over the other country, i.e. Russia.
This is not acceptable if one devotes just a few minutes’ thought to the subject.
The third point of contention is that the stories talk about a man who was never part of the “Organising Committee” of the 2022 Qatar Cup, purporting that he convinced people who held no vote to induce actual voters through lobbying ... such as picking up the tab at a restaurant!
I wonder what is it that surprises the incisive British press at this point? Haven’t they heard of lobbying in the UK? Are there no lobbyists close to the House of Commons or do they believe their readers are fools?
Finally, often throughout its history, the Fifa has gone through stages of obscurantism, and many of them have taken place just before an election within the body; and this almost savage infighting has always influenced all the media it possibly could.
So it is that this serialised novel developing over the past months across influential tabloids — the English fourth power — catches my eye, as it would catch anyone’s on reading that the alleged “Qatari lobbyist” had expressed his intention of running for the presidency of the body just before being thrown out for life by its authorities using similar arguments to those posted on Sunday, unfolding in a dark and confusing array.
Probably this kind of “Fifaleaks” will not end here, and the contents of the “cache” of the “personal computer” found per chance hours before the start of the World Cup in Brazil still holds more “emails” than anyone can send today.
Usually personal computers save more than just one email, so we’ll surely have more news on the subject.
However, all this mess seems to have unclear origins and developments, and so does the investigative journalism of the Sunday Times.
THE PENINSULA
By Manuel Vazquez Iñirrartu
I read in Sunday’s edition of the Times an article on a formal investigation against a person accused of influencing people with no voting power within the Fifa and others who did cast a ballot for them to vote for no other potential host countries as official venues for the 2018 and 2022 football World Cup other than Russia and Qatar, respectively.
I link this story to a long roster of vague news items is appearing in the British press on the subject. The UK lost the race to host the event and it is well known that it wanted to host the World Cup once again, upholding the old idea that the event constituted what, prior to it being given its current name, was the “soft power” of large and small powers.
From ancient Greece to the present day, including Nazi Germany and many friendlier places, the organisation of big sporting events has been a tool used to control social humour, plus a great showcase for the host countries.
And, in modern times, the opposition and enemies of these countries have also used them to criticise the powers that be.
However, in this particular case, far from generating certainties, this nteenth article on the same subject and the careful “in crescendo” with which they have been presented, make me harbour doubts.
The first is the fact that an investigation on the vote of an international organisation be carried out by just one nation — without any additional interest shown by third parties. All stories I’ve read related to the topic have originated in the UK.
It is at least remarkable that no other articles have appeared anywhere in the world, as if the British press had privileged access to sources that chose them as innocent spokesmen.
The second is that these stories refer to a vote in which the nations chosen to host the World Cup have been Russia and Qatar, and, so far, not a single reference has been made of Russia while there is, yes, at least a striking overabundance of references to a little, rich Arab country.
No one in his right mind can believe that a serious reporter will only be dealing with the weaker of the two countries voted at the same time and by the same people, without casting even a light pall of suspicion over the other country, i.e. Russia.
This is not acceptable if one devotes just a few minutes’ thought to the subject.
The third point of contention is that the stories talk about a man who was never part of the “Organising Committee” of the 2022 Qatar Cup, purporting that he convinced people who held no vote to induce actual voters through lobbying ... such as picking up the tab at a restaurant!
I wonder what is it that surprises the incisive British press at this point? Haven’t they heard of lobbying in the UK? Are there no lobbyists close to the House of Commons or do they believe their readers are fools?
Finally, often throughout its history, the Fifa has gone through stages of obscurantism, and many of them have taken place just before an election within the body; and this almost savage infighting has always influenced all the media it possibly could.
So it is that this serialised novel developing over the past months across influential tabloids — the English fourth power — catches my eye, as it would catch anyone’s on reading that the alleged “Qatari lobbyist” had expressed his intention of running for the presidency of the body just before being thrown out for life by its authorities using similar arguments to those posted on Sunday, unfolding in a dark and confusing array.
Probably this kind of “Fifaleaks” will not end here, and the contents of the “cache” of the “personal computer” found per chance hours before the start of the World Cup in Brazil still holds more “emails” than anyone can send today.
Usually personal computers save more than just one email, so we’ll surely have more news on the subject.
However, all this mess seems to have unclear origins and developments, and so does the investigative journalism of the Sunday Times.
THE PENINSULA
