Wednesday night at FedEx Field in Washington D.C., Spanish soccer giant Barcelona played a friendly match against the English football club Manchester United. The game ended in a 1-0 victory for Barcelona, with the only goal coming from Brazilian forward Neymar, who was able to put pressure on the ball and escape multiple defenders in order to score a beautiful goal. Neymar has been a catalyst for his team since arriving in 2013, bringing nine trophies in just three years to Barcelona. But it appears that the superstar striker may be on the move.

Over the past week, there have been multiple reports that Neymar is interested in joining French football club Paris St.-Germain (PSG). The team plans on activating Barcelona’s €222 million release clause, as well as a potential transfer payment of €196 million. PSG would also pay Neymar’s wages of €30 million a year for the next five years, as well as a €40 million fee to his father, who acts as his agent. The entire deal could amount to €450 million, which would obliterate the previous transfer payment record, set by Manchester United, which payed €105 million for French midfielder Paul Pogba last summer.

However, some sources say that a decision has not been made yet because Neymar and his associates are concerned that the deal may violate the Financial Fair Play rules. Before he signs the deal with PSG, Neymar reportedly wants assurances that he will not be investigated by the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA), European soccer’s governing body.

Financial Fair Play is a financial reform established by former UEFA President Michel Platini in 2010, in response to the growing number of teams running huge debts and declaring bankruptcy.

The rule requires clubs to balance spending with revenue. The end goal is for a club to break even for every three-year assessment period. However, clubs are allowed to spend more than they take in if the excess expenditure “is entirely covered by a direct contribution/payment from the club owner(s) or a related party.” Under FFP regulations, players’ wages are not allowed to exceed 70 percent of the club’s income.

If a soccer club is found to be in violation of FFP regulations, the consequences can be severe. Teams and individual players can be banned from participating in major UEFA competitions, and the UEFA can withhold a club’s revenue. PSG was previously found to be in violation of FFP rules, and was fined €60 million.

During the 2015-16 season, PSG made €105 million, and players’ wages made up about 54 percent of the club’s income. But even if PSG absorbed Neymar’s massive contract, the club’s total wages would be 65 percent of its income, which would put them in compliance with FFP regulations.

The overall problem posed by the transfer would be the addition of €100 million in expenditures just from adding Neymar this year alone. But PSG is confident that bringing in a player of Neymar’s caliber and popularity would dramatically increase merchandising sales for the club, which would help offset his massive fee. Neymar is one of the most marketable and recognizable sports figures in the world–he has 78.6 million Instagram followers.

To make up for their Neymar-related spending, PSG can offload some of its more expensive players. But so far, according to Andrea Traverso, the head of UEFA’s club licensing committee and financial fair play, PSG has been following the FFP regulations. As long as the club is able to break even on the deal, the UEFA has no problem with it spending €450 million for one player.

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Could Financial Fair Play Rules Force Neymar to Stay in Barcelona? appeared first on Law Street.

In 2010, the 22-member FIFA Executive Committee awarded Russia and Qatar the 2018 and 2022 World Cups, respectively. These decisions stirred up major controversy among media commentators and government officials all over the world. As a result, allegations that the two countries bought their way into hosting the international soccer tournament during the 2009 bidding process began to spring up.

Though the accusations were serious, they were not exactly unfounded. Before the committee voted on which country to award the World Cups, two of its members were suspended due to allegations of vote corruption from their respective soccer confederation regions–Oceania and Nigeria. FIFA also branded Qatar as a “high operational risk” for hosting the tournament due to its average summer temperatures of 115 degrees Fahrenheit and challenges linked to stadium locations. Russia was the only other bid to not have a “low risk” rating.

The controversy has only grown since then. Since the 2010 vote, most members of the committee at the time have been banned for unethical conduct, indicted on corruption charges by the U.S. Department of Justice, or remain under scrutiny by federal prosecutors in Switzerland–where FIFA headquarters are located–who have 25 ongoing investigations involving more than 170 bank transactions suspected as money laundering.

On Monday, a new development occurred. A German newspaper published a portion of a leaked 2014 report–which FIFA commissioned–once expected to be the explosive holy grail for FIFA critics who thought the votes that gave the World Cups to Russia and Qatar could be rerun.

According to the report in Bild, three FIFA executive members were flown to a party in Rio in a private jet belonging to the Qatari federation just before the vote for 2018 and 2022 hosting rights, and Aspire Academy–an independent Qatari government-funded agency that provides “sports training and education to students with sporting potential”–was implicated “in a decisive manner” in “the manipulation of FIFA members who had the right to vote.” It also mentioned a $2m sum allegedly paid to the 10-year-old daughter of another FIFA official just before the vote.

The report was supposed to be released in 2014 under the authorship of American lawyer Michael Garcia–known for prosecuting the men who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993 and investigating former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer. FIFA hired Garcia in 2012 to investigate the World Cup bidding process. FIFA decided to release a 42-page summary that “cleared” Russia and Qatar of corruption. Garcia called the edited report “incomplete and erroneous” and subsequently resigned in protest citing “lack of leadership” at the organization, which led many to believe that the public would never see the full, unedited version.

Other critics of the redacted report include Simon Johnson, who led England’s bid to host the 2018 World Cup. “Now that I have seen Mr Garcia’s statement, I am absolutely convinced that the report is a politically motivated whitewash,” he told the BBC. While Qatar and Russia were vindicated by the report, England’s Football Association was accused of flouting bidding rules.

As a response to the initial leak, FIFA–in a rare sighting of transparency–released the full Garcia report on Tuesday. The message generally remained the same: there was no “evidence of any improper activity by [Qatar].” Peter Rossberg–the journalist who claims to have obtained the report–said in a Facebook post that the full report does not provide outright proof of corruption during 2018 and 2022 bidding, but more findings could arise when everything is put together “like a puzzle.”

The full report still brought other findings to light about the relationship between FIFA executives and entities connected to Qatar. South American FIFA voting member, Julio Grondona, failed to disclose meetings to the investigators as well as a discussion about Qatar potentially paying for flights before his death in 2014. An adviser to Thailand’s soccer federation, whose leader was a FIFA voter, was involved in talks between a Thai gas company and Qatar over an energy deal with Doha. Garcia referred to both of these incidents as troubling and suggested that further inquiry be made.

The report also found that the Qatari heat was never discussed in the executive committee meeting before the vote, not even by the voter who also served as FIFA medical chief, Michel D’Hooghe, who was “compromised by his actions” over Qatar, according to Garcia. D’Hooghe’s son was later employed by a Doha hospital linked to the Aspire sports academy  and the bid team was also arranging a business opportunity for a friend’s son ahead of the vote.

Whether or not this will actually result in any sort of sanctions levied against Qatar, or even an outright abdication of its position as World Cup hosts, remains to be seen. The only existing precedent of the tournament getting moved was when Colombia was supposed to host the 1986 World Cup. In that instance, a continent-wide economic collapse had inhibited the country’s ability to afford it. Colombia backed out in 1983, which gave the new host, Mexico, nearly three years to prepare.

As to what it would take for FIFA to remove Qatar as hosts, in 2015, then-FIFA president Sepp Blatter said that only an “earthquake, extremely important new elements,” could change the organization’s decision to hold the 2022 tournament in the Gulf state. At this point, any movement seems unlikely.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post German Newspaper Publishes “Suppressed” FIFA Corruption Report appeared first on Law Street.

The recent history of Croatian soccer has forced its supporters to go from dreams of glory to heads hung in shame. Between its creation in 1991 to its third place World Cup finish in 1998, the country experienced the most extreme jump in FIFA rankings history–going from 125th in the world to third. In the following years, the country produced top level talent that has shined for some of the largest clubs in Europe, like Barcelona and Juventus, and showcased their abilities for the national team. But the underlying corruption that has plagued the country’s soccer scene on an international and domestic level has prevented Croatia from reaching the heights it did in the late nineties, and has allowed for homegrown players to only find real success in other countries.

It appeared as though one of the heads of Croatia’s corruption problems was about to be cut off when national team captain Luka Modrić appeared as the key witness at the corruption trial of a former director of one of the Croatian clubs, Dinamo Zagreb. The former director, Zdravko Mamić, is accused of embezzlement and tax evasion. When prosecutors presented, and repeated, a statement Modrić had made to them earlier in the court proceedings that would have closed the case, he nervously distanced himself from his words.

“That… That I’ve never said… that it… that… that it was drawn up afterwards,” he told prosecutors. “I told you then that I couldn’t remember when it had been done.”

Just 10 days earlier, Modrić was celebrating Real Madrid’s 12th Champions League title in Cardiff following a 4-1 victory over Juventus. The moment should have been a source of pride for his home country as one of their most successful exports had ascended to the summit of European soccer for a third time. Yet, within hours of his testimony, he was greeted with chants of “Luka Modrić, you little sh*t” from Croatian soccer supporters. The hotel where his family lived when they were war refugees in the 1990s was even defaced with graffiti that translates to “Luka, you’ll remember this one day,” and other murals dedicated to him had also been vandalized.

Mural for Luka Modric in Mostar defaced after he changed his testimony in favour of Zdravko Mamic at the latter’s corruption trial. pic.twitter.com/xTbRRygzYP

— Rusty Woodger (@rustywoodger) June 14, 2017

In order to explain why the weight of Modrić’s comments resulted in such a vulgar backlash, it is important to understand who Zdravko Mamić is, what he means to Croatian soccer, and how he relates back to Luka Modrić.

Zdravko Mamić: A Rise and Pending Fall

Zdravko Mamić is the former executive director and a current adviser to Dinamo Zagreb, the winningest team in Croatia this century. Since his friendship with a former manager got him a job with Dinamo back in 1980, Mamić has had a range of influence over the club. As an adviser to the club’s board in the early 2000s, he was able to dictate which players the club should sign. Over time, Mamić grew to become the executive president of Dinamo and first vice-president of the Croatian Football Federation (CFF), the governing body of all soccer-related activities in the country, ensuring his influence would be as strong as it could possibly be.

As his power grew, however, the number of controversies he became involved with increased as well. Mamić’s history includes abusing reporters, general homophobia, and inciting violence following racist remarks he made toward a Serbian official. He also financially controls two of the 10 clubs in the Croatian first division and has been accused of forcing the national team to showcase players from Dinamo so he can sell them for exorbitant amounts of money to larger European clubs.

This history has led to various protests coming Dinamo fans, fans of other Croatian clubs, and even fans of other European clubs.

Mamić and five other people were arrested in 2015 for embezzling the equivalent of $17.3 million of the club’s money since 2008 and not paying $1.8 million in state taxes. Prosecutors claim that this was done through illegal contracts made with some of Dinamo’s most famous former players including Modrić and Mario Mandžukić, a striker for the Italian team Juventus.

Method to the Madness

Here’s how Mamić was able to supposedly get away with this money: unlike in most American professional sports, players are not usually swapped for one another in trades if they are still under contract to a team. FIFA rules state that a club interested in a player has to buy out that player’s contract from the club they currently play on with a “transfer fee.” Once the transfer fee is agreed upon by both clubs, the buying club can enter contract negotiations with the player, and the selling club keeps the transfer fee as revenue.

What Mamić was allegedly doing was taking the transfer fees that were supposed to go to investing in the club and its players, and funneling them into his own bank account. Dinamo has earned nearly €150 million from transfers in the past 10 years. Much of it has disappeared into concealed channels, although the exact number is not known. Additionally, players abroad were required to pay some of their wages back to Mamić as a sign of goodwill for the “good” he had done for them.

The Modrić Connection

One of Mamić’s biggest cash machines was Modrić, who was sold to the Tottenham Hotspurs in 2008 for €21 million, a club record for the English side at the time. Half of that transfer fee went to Modrić. Further investigation, and testimony by Modrić, showed that he would go to a bank accompanied by Mamić’s son or brother, withdraw funds from his personal account and hand the cash to either of the two men. Of the €10.5 million, Modrić kept €1.7 million and the rest went to the Mamić family.

The defense argues that this was  an expected relationship between the two groups because Mamić was a benefactor to Modrić during the midfielder’s youth career and helped him reach his full potential as a professional. The agreement was one of many that Mamić created with promising young players that obliged them to pay him back with their future earnings.

What is currently being disputed, and why Modrić has been such a key witness in this case, involves the date of the contract that allowed the midfielder to keep 50 percent of his transfer fee. Prosecutors argue that that portion of the contract was signed and backdated after the player had already been sold, making the transfer illegal. Modrić supposedly confirmed this in questioning last year, but denied it in court on Tuesday, claiming he was confused.

“When speaking about that, I was talking about a personal contract between Mamic and me, which regulated the split of the transfer fee,” he said in his testimony. But as if that were not enough, Modrić also forgot key portions of his playing career that ended up helping the defense’s case, including the year when he debuted for the national team.

Before his comments in court, Modrić was seen as the victim in this scenario. He was the poor kid from Zadar whose ignorance and naivety was exploited by the “big bad wolf”–Mamić. After his testimony, however, it will be hard to shake his association with someone often referred to as the number one enemy of soccer in the country.

No one is quite sure why Modrić changed his testimony. One theory is that he was scared of crossing such a powerful individual. Mamić’s political influence is so wide,  that the location of this trial had to be moved from the capital Zagreb to Osijek–nearly 175 miles away–because of his close ties with some of the Zagreb judges.

What Comes Next?

Whatever the reason, prosecutors will have some time to sit on this new revelation as Mamić made a big scene in the courtroom on Wednesday morning, and fired his whole legal team before saying he’ll defend himself. The judge ordered a recess until further notice.

Despite the self-sabotaging move, a seemingly-unavoidable Mamić conviction would not even result in much change happening, according to fervent Croatian soccer critic Anthony Zoric.

“Zdravko Mamić cannot simply be replaced,” Zoric said. “For things to improve at the current federation the entire HNS board must resign. The system has been manipulated to serve the interests of Mamić and his friends.”

But a change on that scale could be unrealistic and generally unattainable. Outside pressure from corruption trials might be the closest opportunity Croatian fans will get to relieve some of the issues and turn a new chapter in the soccer history of their country.  The national team has been marked by controversy while the domestic league, filled with its own set of talented players, is making more news for corruption than soccer itself. Any change might be welcome at this point.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Does a Corruption Trial Have the Possibility to Transform Croatian Soccer? appeared first on Law Street.

Soccer, according to FIFA, is a “beautiful game” meant to “inspire the world and increase international cooperation.” However, for Qatar–FIFA’s 2022 World Cup host country–it may actually be causing unrest in the Middle East.

Qatar is in jeopardy of having its World Cup plans derailed, after some of the most powerful nations in the Arab world broke diplomatic ties with the Gulf state Monday.

Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) accused Qatar’s government of sponsoring terrorist organizations, such as Al Qaeda and Islamic State, to provoke violence in the Middle East.

The diplomatic crisis may be the final straw in a flood of controversies plaguing the world’s richest country since it was formally elected by FIFA to host the World Cup soccer tournament back in 2010.

Qatari sports officials have been accused of giving bribes to members of FIFA in exchange for their vote for the World Cup, and there has been backlash over whether or not hosting a Winter World Cup will disrupt club soccer league seasons throughout the world.

It’s also unclear if Qatar will be open to the LGBTQ community–Qatar has strict laws against homosexuality (former FIFA president Sepp Blatter’s solution to this problem was for gays to simply not have sex while in Qatar).

Furthermore, there have been multiple news investigations into the alleged abuse of migrant workers from Nepal and India, who were brought in to build the infrastructure needed to accommodate millions traveling to Qatar for the World Cup. These workers are said to live in horrendous conditions, have slave-like wages, and have had their passports illegally taken from them.

But these are just a handful of the dozens of accusations against the Qatar government, and FIFA as well.

Qatar relies heavily on the use of its neighbors airspace; therefore, the end of diplomatic relations with Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE will make travel in and out of the country extremely difficult. Qatar’s singular land border with Saudi Arabia will also hinder the country’s ability to bring in materials needed for major infrastructure projects.

No decisions have been made by FIFA, but officials are said to be “in regular contact” with Qatar’s government. But with Qatar spending an estimated $220 billion toward the soccer tournament (10 times what Brazil spent on the 2014 World Cup), don’t expect the country to fold easily on its investment.

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Qatar at Risk of Losing 2022 World Cup Due to Gulf Crisis appeared first on Law Street.

An 8-year-old girl from Omaha, Nebraska and her soccer team were disqualified from the championship round of a tournament this weekend after officials told her team that “she looks like a boy.”

Milagros “Mili” Hernandez was mistakenly identified as a boy on a Nebraska soccer tournament registration form. Officials then ignored the reality that another form listed her as a girl and that she was on an all-girls team, according to The Washington Post.

Her father, Gerardo Hernandez, then attempted to show tournament officials Mili’s insurance card to prove she was a girl, according to ESPN. The Nebraska soccer officials ignored the pleas and cited Hernandez’s short hair as evidence.

So, despite winning two of their three games on Saturday, which guaranteed them a chance to earn a trophy, the entire Azzurri Achurros team was disqualified just hours before their 2 p.m. kick off, according to The Washington Post. 

Mili burst into tears when she heard the decision.

‘I was mad; I never had that problem before. She’s been playing so long in different tournaments,’ her father told The Washington Post. ‘I don’t want no problems with nobody, but that wasn’t the right way to treat people. Why they want to tell my girl looks like a boy?’

Mili plays on the local 11-year-old team after she dominated the league for her age group. The talented youngster dreams of extending her soccer career into middle and high school before advancing to college and, hopefully, the professional leagues, according to her brother.

She has worn her hair short since she was young, her father said, and as she’s grown older she has decided to keep it that way. That spurred USA soccer star Abby Wambach, who also has short hair, to offer support to Mili in the aftermath.

Dear Mili Hernandez, you are amazing in every way. Thank you for teaching us how to be brave and shining a light on something so hurtful. If you don't know, she is my new hero. Her team was disqualified from a tourney cause they thought she was a boy because of a clerical error that wasn't handled properly. Let's meet soon sister.

A post shared by Mary Wambach (@abbywambach) on Jun 5, 2017 at 8:59pm PDT

While the Nebraska soccer tournament has concluded, organizers told the Hernandez family that they could appeal the decision with the Nebraska State Soccer Association, according to local NBC affiliate WOWT News.

But even if she can’t play in future tournaments like this one, another soccer star is here to help out. Mia Hamm, one of the most notable female American soccer players, also offered support.

Hey Mili, we would love to host you at one of our camps @TeamFirstSA . Be you!

— Mia Hamm (@MiaHamm) June 5, 2017

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Eight-Year-Old Girl Who “Looks Like a Boy” Disqualified from Nebraska Soccer Tournament appeared first on Law Street.

Misogyny in Brazil is in the spotlight after soccer club Boa Esporte rushed to sign 32-year old goalie Bruno Fernandes de Souza, who was convicted of murdering his girlfriend in 2010. De Souza, widely known as just Bruno, only served seven years out of a 22-year sentence, and reportedly other clubs also tried to sign him as soon as he was released. Bruno was convicted of ordering the torture and dismembering of his former girlfriend, 25-year old model Eliza Samudio, and then having his friends feed her body parts to his dogs.

Samudio was also the mother of Bruno’s child, and he ordered the murder after she demanded that he pay child support. Violence against women is a big problem in Brazil, and the announcement of Boa Esporte’s two-year contract with Bruno sparked outrage from Samudio’s family and others. “Women are outraged and so are the general public. It is as if he had gone unpunished,” wrote Brazilian feminist activist Djamila Ribeiro.

Bruno had his ex-girlfriend murdered, dismembered & fed to dogs.

After just 7 years of a 22-year sentence, he’s got a new club. Revolting. https://t.co/zsDuLQi4HZ

— Joe Crann (@YesWeCrann) March 13, 2017

At least three sponsors have withdrawn their support of Boa Esporte in the wake of this news, but the city of Varghina still backs the club. Samudio’s mother filed an unsuccessful lawsuit asking for Bruno to be sent back to prison, as he might be posing a threat to her grandson. But Boa Esporte’s president Rone Moraes da Costa defended the decision to sign Bruno, saying that he has served his sentence and that Boa Esporte is helping him get back on track, through the “dignity of work.”

This explanation was not enough for protesters, especially after video clips emerged of Bruno celebrating his release from prison with champagne, and  outrage has continued both nationally and from overseas. A demonstration is planned outside the club’s stadium and some fans have pledged to not watch the team play as long as Bruno is a part of it. Recently a group of feminists hacked the club’s website.

ESPORTE INTERATIVO:

Boa Esporte’s official site has been hacked by feminists, after announcing the signing of Bruno who had killed his GF. pic.twitter.com/IpVD5sSkrY

— Seleção Brasileira (@BrazilStat) March 13, 2017

Violence against women and girls in Brazil increased by 24 percent over the previous decade according to Amnesty International, and the government cut the Ministry of Women’s Affairs, Racial Equality, and Human Rights last May. Brazil was named one of the worst countries in South America for young women. And as long as powerful organizations care more about publicity and money than standing up for victims of violence, change seems far off. But at least there are feminist movements on the rise. The Popular Feminist Front of Varginha, the group that plans the demonstration at the stadium, wrote in a Facebook post:

We protest both against this contract and against the willingness of the team and its sponsors to have their images linked to feminicide. A woman-killer must not be allowed a life acclaimed by the media. Bruno is no longer just a goalkeeper; his notoriety reflects the ease with which a woman’s life is forgotten in the interests of a sporting career.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Outrage in Brazil After Team Signs Soccer Player Who Murdered His Girlfriend appeared first on Law Street.

The sights and sounds lent the midday scene a feeling of political unrest: fists, chairs, and bottles were thrown. People yelled, incomprehensibly and passionately, at high volume. Glass shattered on the concrete. Police fired tear gas into the raucous crowd. This was not a reaction to oppressive politics or even a protest of a law, however. It was the seaside city of Marseille, France on Saturday afternoon, after Russia and England squared off in the Euro 2016 soccer championships.

And on Sunday, as a result of the violent clashes between Russian and English fans, the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) threatened to disqualify both teams from the tournament if the brawling continues. “Such unacceptable behaviour by so-called supporters of the national teams of England and Russia has no place in football, a sport we must protect and defend,” read a statement released by UEFA, which also urged the soccer organizations of both countries to condemn the actions of their supporters.

Things first got testy during the game–which ended in a 1-1 tie–when Russian fans reportedly set off flare guns and stormed the barriers that are designed to separate rival fans. By the end of the day Saturday, 31 people were injured (four critically), and 17 arrested. Moving forward, UEFA promised security would be “strengthened,” following the lax pat downs dolled out by security guards on Saturday, which allowed Russian fans to bring in flares undetected. 

Rebekah Vardy, wife of English striker Jamie Vardy, tweeted about the incident, which she was swept up in before the game even started:

That has to be up there with the worst experience EVER at an away game! Teargassed for no reason, caged and treated like animals! Shocking!

— Rebekah Vardy (@RebekahVardy) June 11, 2016

UEFA is considering immediate action against Russia–which is set to host the 2018 World Cup–on Tuesday. During the 2012 Euro Championships in Poland and Ukraine, Russia was fined £150,000 ($213,310) and hit with a six point deduction toward qualifying rounds for the 2016 tournament. For its part, the British government has offered to send extra police forces to Marseille.

Both the Russian and English soccer bodies supported UEFA’s moves to punish the teams. “We strongly request that you show due respect to the opponents and their supporters,” said a statement published by the Russian Football Union. “We kindly remind you that the matches of our national team are under scrutiny of international football disciplinary bodies.”

England’s counterpart, the Football Association, agreed. Chief Executive Martin Glenn said: “We understand the potential implications of our supporters’ actions and wholly accept that every effort needs to be made by the FA to positively urge them to act in a responsible and respectful way.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Euro 2016: Clashes Erupt in Stadium, Spill onto Marseille Streets appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to the RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through the top five controversial and crazy stories in the world of law and policy each day. So who is ranting and who is raving today? Check it out below:

Is John Oliver a Debt-Buying Copycat?

John Oliver is being accused of stealing his debt-buying idea from a debtor advocacy organization. The Debt Collective, which raised $700,000 to erase nearly $1 billion in medical and tuition debt, is saying that John Oliver’s researchers contacted them asking about their incredible feat. The Debt Collective spent hours giving “Last Week Tonight” detail after detail on how they organized the work and then “at the last minute” “LWT” did not want to be associated with the Collective’s Occupy Wall Street roots. Now the so-called Oprah of late night TV is facing a scandal and people haven’t been too keen on coming to his defense.

John Oliver not crediting The Debt Collective with the Rolling Jubilee idea is exactly what’s wrong with tv comedy news

— Kaitlin Marone 2016 (@immerspaetlin) June 9, 2016

DEBT COLLECTIVE, 2011: we’re gonna buy debt & forgive it
JOHN OLIVER, 2016: actually thats my idea
MEDIAITE: yes the british man did it 1st

— jm (@jaubert_moniker) June 7, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrushTop 5: June 9, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Athletes from practically every sport frequently donate their gear to charity but this week, FC Barcelona’s Lionel Messi received negative press after donating a pair of shoes to a charity auction conducted by a television station with high Egyptian viewership. Instead of being seen as a gesture of goodwill, the donation of the shoes was received as a slap in the face–a suggestion that Egyptians aren’t capable of purchasing their own shoes. Furthermore, in Egyptian culture, shoes are seen as a symbol of disrespect or insult (shoes are considered unclean in many parts of the Arab world and the act of throwing a shoe at someone is a powerful insult). Egyptian MP Said Hasasin went on national television denouncing Messi’s donation, removed his own shoes and claimed he would donate them to Argentina as a form of retribution. Egypt’s Football Association representative Azmy Megahed sided with Hasasin, stating that :

I am confused, if he intends to humiliate us, then I say he better put these shoes on his head and on the heads of the people supporting him. We don’t need his shoes and we don’t need charity from Jewish or Israeli people. Give your shoes to your country, Argentina is full of poverty.

The Jewish Chronicle expressed confusion over this reaction, as Messi is in fact Catholic.

Not all reactions to Messi’s donation were negative. The Egyptian football manager (and former player) Mido defended Messi, stating that a soccer player’s shoes are his most prized possession and the whole debate stemmed from a misunderstanding. Reporter Mona El-Sharkawy, who conducted the interview, stated that Messi never suggested he was donating the shoes to Egypt–the program she interviewed him for asks all its guests to donate items to a charity auction and Messi simply suggested that he would like to donate his shoes to that auction. He never mentioned the country of Egypt at all, and meant no offense.

While the Egyptians who spoke out against Messi’s donation have the right to their own opinions, they may have cost Egyptian charities a major opportunity to raise money. Auctioning off the possessions of famous athletes has historically been a profitable practice and an athlete with as much star power as Messi would have no doubt drawn interest from buyers around the world. Messi is a five time Ballon d’Or recipient who is generally considered to be the best soccer player on the planet. The shoes were not a gift to the nation of Egypt, they were a donation to a specific charity that was seeking out the possessions of celebrities. Lionel Messi has historically been very active in donating to charity and taking part in fundraising events, including the foundation of his own organization–Fundacion Leo Messi–which aims to improve the lives of impoverished youth around the world. By taking a gesture that was meant out of goodwill to heart as an attack on national identity and prosperity, Hasasin and Megahed denied the charity auction the opportunity to rake in a significant sum.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post No Good Deed Goes Unpunished: Messi’s Donation Offends Egyptian Officials appeared first on Law Street.

Despite shining a light on a country that hasn’t traditionally been well-known for its soccer performance on the world stage, the players on the U.S. women’s national soccer team still aren’t receiving the recognition they deserve. The Women’s World Cup and Olympic Gold Medal champs have been a source of pride for the U.S. Soccer Federation, but now the team’s top players are bringing attention to the fact that they’re still being paid less than their male counterparts, despite outperforming them.

Five of the team’s top players: goalkeeper Hope Solo, forward Alex Morgan, midfielder Megan Rapinoe, and co-captains Carli Lloyd and Becki Sauerbrunn, filed a federal complaint on Thursday with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against the U.S. Soccer Federation, alleging wage discrimination.

In the complaint, the players point out that the Women’s National Team is projected to bring in a net profit of $5 million for U.S. Soccer while the Men’s National Team is actually projected to bring a net loss of $1 million. Meanwhile, they receive less compensation for Friendlies, the World Cup, and sponsored appearances compared to the men’s team. The complaint alleges:

There are no legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for this gross disparity of wages, nor can it be explained away by any bona fide seniority, merit or incentive system or any other factor other than sex.

In an interview with ESPN, the teammates spoke up on the filing, saying that they resorted to legal action after having several conversations with U.S. Soccer that were ineffective. They also said that while only the five of them were listed on the complaint, they were representing the entire women’s team in their fight.

U.S. Soccer responded Thursday, emphasizing their commitment to women’s soccer but claiming that they would not engage in negotiations until the current collective bargaining agreement (CBA) expired at the end of this year. The U.S. Soccer president Sunil Gulati also claimed that the women’s team does not generate as much revenue as the men’s team and that revenue generation must be part of the equation.

US Soccer statement re: today’s developments related to #uswnt. pic.twitter.com/pqk1GinTCB

— Jeff Carlisle (@JeffreyCarlisle) March 31, 2016

For now, the players will need to wait for a response from the EEOC to see if U.S. Soccer violated any laws. This fight goes beyond the actual legal complaint, however, as the players want their actions to send a broader message regarding gender equality. When asked what they hope to achieve with this complaint, the players cited equality, respect, equal pay, and opportunities for younger girls. If the EEOC sides with the team, this could set a significant precedent for female athletes and make a statement regarding equality and equal pay on a broader level.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Top Stars on U.S. Women’s Soccer Step Up Their Fight For Wage Equality appeared first on Law Street.

With the United States losing to Jamaica in the semifinals of the CONCACAF Gold Cup the final was projected to be Panama vs. Jamaica. The  regional soccer tournament between the countries in Central America, North America, and the Caribbean is held every two years and draws millions of viewers. However, the success of the Gold Cup this year may have been corrupted by the allegations of inappropriate refereeing to ensure that the final game featured Mexico.

The finals were scheduled to be played in Philadelphia, which is home to many Mexicans. For revenue purposes, it would have been ideal to host a final including Mexico rather than  a Panama-Jamaica final. With the U.S. losing in the semifinals, placing at least one soccer power house, most likely Mexico, in the final was imperative for TV viewership as well. It’s within this context that questionable referee calls took place in the quarterfinal against Costa Rica and  the semifinal against Panama which ultimately granted Mexico a spot in the finals. The head referee of the calls in the semifinals, Mark Geiger, along with CONCACAF, are receiving serious backlash, as many critics, soccer players, and countries feel that there were third member parties involved which made it possible for Mexico to win. Although Geiger apologized for his calls, and CONCACAF admitted mistakes were made, an investigation is pending to truly determine what went wrong.

There were two clear instances in which observers are claiming that the calls made on behalf of Mexico were amiss. The Mexican-Costa Rican semifinal game ended with a winning penalty kick for Mexico, yet the nature of the foul that led to the kick was very much disputed. Many feel that Mexico was given a clear advantage in that game and that the actions embodied by the ref showcased an ulterior motive. Then, the Mexico vs. Panama game shocked athletes and fans around the world. Panama lost a man after a foul call, then a second controversial call allowed Mexico to tie up the game. Mexico then moved onto the final game against Jamaica and won the Gold Cup.

In the moments following the Panama game, spectators and members of the Panamanian Soccer Federation alike were quick to accuse Mexico of fixing the game. Allegations were also made about third party members being involved and paying off the referees. Panama’s federation demanded the removal of CONCACAF’s referee selection panel after describing the officiating in the loss as “insulting and embarrassing.” The statement also accused the match officials of favoring Mexico in a “vulgar and shameless way.” While there may not be any clear answers for some time, if there was any cheating involved, it does not appear to involve the Mexican players. “I didn’t celebrate because that penalty call left me with a bad taste,” said Mexican player Andres Guardado after he scored the controversial penalty kick which ultimately propelled them into the final.

This isn’t the first time CONCACAF has been accused of shady behavior. There was recently a massive investigation which resulted in several lawsuits against individuals working with FIFA and the organization as a whole. Amidst the disaster, two former CONCACAF presidents Jack Warner and Jeffrey Webb were accused of bribery by the United States Justice Department. The United States Department of Justice alleged that for more than two decades, sports-marketing executives paid more than $150-million dollars in kickbacks and bribes to high-ranking soccer officials. The charges are an indication and direct representation of corrupt practices at the highest level of the world’s most popular sport; secret meetings, hidden cash, and bank accounts in Panama and the Cayman Islands were discovered as part of the investigation.

Most recently, CONCACAF acting President Alfredo Hawit announced a review of the refereeing in the Gold Cup. This review will hopefully shed light on the events of the two controversial games. While it may have been more profitable to have Mexico in the finals, it’s important that the integrity of the game remains intact.

Symon Rowlands

Symon Rowlands is a member of the University of Miami Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Symon now blogs for Law Street, focusing mostly on politics. Contact Symon at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Controversial Calls: What Happened at the Gold Cup? appeared first on Law Street.

I know, I know. I shouldn’t be so gleeful that so many lesbians were OUT and about (see what I did there?) at the World Cup this year.

No, you don’t need to be super masculine to be amazing at sports. And no, you don’t need to be super masculine to be a lesbian (and yes, you can be super masculine and also somehow not be a lesbian). So no, I don’t want to celebrate just how much lesbiosity there was at this year’s World Cup because I don’t want to perpetuate this idea that masculinity = sports and masculinity = male, so male = sports, and if women are amazing at sports, then women must be masculine and must be lesbians (follow all that?!).

None of that is true. I know.

BUT I AM STILL SO HAPPY ABOUT THIS.

By this, of course, I mean the international platform that the World Cup has become for out lesbian players to advocate for genuine queer inclusion in professional sports.

I also mean–and I giggle gleefully each time I think about it or watch the video (now you can, too: scroll down!!)–Abby Wambach jogging over to the sidelines after winning the World Cup Sunday night and kissing her wife, Sarah Huffman.

But I’m still sad about it. I’m sad that it’s such a big deal.

To describe what I mean, I–the English PhD student and aspiring novelist–am going to have to turn to Tumblr (at least I don’t take myself too seriously, right?). Because really, carmillastakesmyheart hashtagged this post perfectly: When “Just Straight Things # 18” was deemed by the delightful and sadly accurate JustStraightThings blog to be “donating blood” (because we queers aren’t allowed to due to queerphobic and medically meaningless FDA regulations), carmillastakesmyheart reblogged the post with the hashtags #thismademelaugh and #thenmademereallysad (see below).

Which is exactly how I feel about the sensation that has become of Wambach and Huffman’s “Kiss Seen ‘Round the World.” Because it is not (just) an emblem of queer “progress”–the overwhelmingly supportive media response to it is an indication of how far we still need to go.

Because some media couldn’t even be bothered to acknowledge that Sarah is her wife.

The homophobia via erasing queerness doesn’t surprise me.

So yes, the kiss makes me laugh with happiness.

But then it makes me sad. Because it’s a big deal. It’s a huge, sensational, enormous deal.

And it really shouldn’t be at all.

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bittersweet Lesbian Kisses at the World Cup appeared first on Law Street.

Votes swinging based on bribes, secret deals made in backrooms, corruption at the highest levels. No, this is not about the next presidential election–not yet anyway. Instead this is how the last few World Cups have allegedly been awarded. To many jaded sports fans familiar with the International Olympic Committee or NCAA, this is not surprising. Even for the naïve, allegations of corruption in FIFA are not startling. What was unexpected though was that the powerful people at FIFA would actually be caught. With the recent arrests, the narrative of the story has shifted from if the tree is rotten to how far up that rot goes. Read on to learn about the scandal rocking FIFA and what it means for the future of the World Cup and its decisionmakers.

FIFA

To understand the FIFA scandal, it is first necessary to understand the organization itself, and its former leader, Sepp Blatter.

What is FIFA?

FIFA–the Federation Internationale de Football Association–was founded in May 1904 by the international football associations of seven countries. The organization continued to grow, but remained entirely European until 1909 when South Africa joined and the United States followed in 1912. FIFA went through hard times during WWI and nearly fell apart altogether, however it endured and began expanding anew.

In 1930, FIFA staged its first World Cup, an event it had been building up to ever since soccer was first played at the Olympics in 1908. In the ensuing years, the organization and its membership grew while also dealing with issues such as travel causing many of best teams to not participate in the first few World Cups. By the 1970s FIFA had really emerged on the world stage incorporating members from Europe and South America in growing numbers as well as many new members from former colonial holdings. Under the much-maligned supervision of Sepp Blatter, FIFA has grown into a powerful global entity with 209 members worldwide, divided into six regional confederations, and with unquestioned clout.

Who is Sepp Blatter?

Sepp Blatter first became part of FIFA in 1975, after leaving his job at a Swiss watchmaker. He spent the next 40 years serving in a variety of roles since his start, namely as secretary general for 17 years and then president of the organization since 1998. Under his leadership FIFA’s crowning tournament has been played on two new continents, Asia and Africa, and become a multi-billion dollar tournament.

Despite his role in dramatically growing the game’s presence worldwide, Blatter is known as much for controversy. In the past he has made numerous inappropriate comments and been repeatedly accused of corruption in the court of public opinion. The awarding of the 2018 World Cup to Russia and the 2022 contest to Qatar seemed to be the ultimate examples of his duplicitousness.

Still, even with this reputation and after the recent arrests of senior FIFA members, Blatter was able to avoid indictment and was actually elected to a fifth term as FIFA president. However, following persistent criticism of himself and FIFA as a whole, Blatter finally relented and resigned his post in 2015. Nonetheless, Blatter will remain in his position until a new election takes place either later this year or early next, meaning the reign of Sepp Blatter at FIFA is not over just yet.

A History of Bribery, Corruption, and Kickbacks

While allegations of corruption and bribery have long haunted Blatter and by extension FIFA, this has had little or no effect on the all-important bottom line. In the last four years alone, FIFA has generated $6 billion in revenue; however, how the money is used has come under greater question. While this money was earmarked for soccer development worldwide, it was instead used for FIFA’s leaders’ own ambitions.

Acting on all the rumor and speculation concerning FIFA’s backroom dealings, the U.S. Justice Department indicted nine of the organization’s leaders for bribery amounting to $150 million. The arrests were part of a larger joint raid made along with Swiss authorities that also saw five corporate executives arrested and charged with racketeering, conspiracy, and corruption. The British are also considering filing their own charges.  The video below explains the FIFA scandal and arrests in detail.

Picking a World Cup

The World Cup is easily the most popular sporting event across the world. In 2010 for example, 200 million people tuned in for the draw or group selection process, not even an actual game. For comparison’s sake, the amount of people who watched the Super Bowl in 2015, a record for the event, maxed out at approximately 121 million people.

How the Process Works

Until 2002, every World Cup was played in either Europe, North America, or South America. However, this finally changed when Japan and Korea co-hosted the event. This also led to a major change in how the hosting country is selected. In 2006, FIFA instituted a system in which the tournament would be rotated among its six regional confederations.

While this was scrapped in 2007, a similar rule was put into place that same year stating that all countries in a particular regional confederation would be ineligible to host two World Cups following the event hosted by a neighboring country. In other words, if the U.S. hosted the 2018 World Cup, other countries in its region, such as Mexico, would not be eligible to host a World Cup until 2030 at the earliest.

The voting process itself is the responsibility of the executive committee, which is made up of 24 people. These include the president and vice president of FIFA, as well as seven other vice presidents representing each continental soccer federation and one from one of the home nations of the United Kingdom. To clarify, there are actually only six continental confederations–Antarctica is left out in the cold, thus the need for the seventh member. Lastly are 15 members elected from the 209 member countries, who are appointed to four-year terms.

These members are in charge of who gets the right to host the World Cup. The voting process involves each country interested in hosting the event giving a presentation on television before the committee. Once all the prospective hosts have presented their cases, the executive committee votes by secret ballot until a winner is declared. In the case of a tie, it is up to the president of FIFA to cast the deciding vote.

Corruption at Every Turn

As can be expected from a process of this nature, corruption is rampant. Of the many accusations, members selling votes is most common. In the most recent World Cup bid process, actual evidence of this phenomenon emerged. Two undercover British journalists were approached and offered votes in exchange for bribes. The notion of corruption however, should not be a surprise, in fact the way FIFA is constructed basically lends itself to this.

While not every country votes on who will host the World Cup, each has a say in another important way. Every member votes for the organization’s president. This is a system that can encourage small countries that are more dependent on FIFA stipends to be more likely to sell their vote in exchange for more support. This is the case because the amount of support each country receives has nothing to do with its size. Thus, for example, a massive country like China can receive less money from FIFA than a small country such as Bermuda.

In addition, aside from money, small countries can also expect other benefits for supporting certain people or countries’ bids. This comes in the form of recognition, namely FIFA along with having a poorly defined system for allocating funds also has an unclear definition of what makes a nation. For example Gibraltar, a small rock governed by the U.K. but claimed by Spain, nearly won recognition as its own nation despite only having a population of 29,000 people. The following video highlights the most recent FIFA presidential election.

Trouble With the Machine

The controversial decisions to award Russia the World Cup in 2018 and Qatar the event in 2022 are hardly the first incidents with picking a host country. In 2002 when Japan and South Korea co-hosted the event there were minor issues with the travel required between the venues causing the organizers to never again hold a multi-country event.

The controversy only ratcheted up for the next World Cup in 2006, when allegations concerning bribery surfaced when Germany won an upset bid for the tournament over supposedly favored South Africa. Recently, details have emerged of specifically what this bribery entailed; in this case it far exceeded the norm. In 2006 Germany is alleged to have temporarily lifted an arms embargo on Saudi Arabia and to have shipped the country weapons in exchange for its vote. It is also accused of using the lure of investment from German companies such as Volkswagen, to get Thailand and South Korea to also support its candidacy.

Controversy continued when the tournament moved to Africa. In 2010 South Africa finally succeeded in its bid for the World Cup. According to a recent report, Morocco actually received more votes but, through a series of bribes, South Africa was declared the winner. At the center of this scandal was former FIFA Vice President Jack Warner, who reportedly took bribes from both countries for the votes he controlled, he may also have taken money from Egypt who was also bidding for the tournament that year.

Like a perpetual storm cloud, problems followed the World Cup when it arrived in soccer mecca Brazil. The issues evolved far beyond just bribery and affected society as whole. Just a few of the major problems included the forced eviction of thousands of poor residents, social unrest, police brutality, unfinished infrastructure projects, unused stadiums, worker deaths, and lasting social inequality that was actually exacerbated by the tournament.

Russia and Qatar

ll these issues bring us back around to the next two proposed hosts for the World Cup: Russia and Qatar. Russia was awarded the tournament despite continued human rights abuses as well as its flagrant invasions of Ukraine and Georgia. Additionally, like Brazil before it, while Russia agrees to host the lavish tournament, people at home will be feeling the cost. Russia plans to spend at least $20 billion–a new record–despite the Ruble losing half its value in the last year and U.S.-led sanctions taking their toll on the Russian economy, as well.

Then there is Qatar, whose selection to hold the 2022 tournament was so preposterous that it played a huge role in authorities finally stepping in to clean up FIFA’s corruption. Qatar plans to spend $220 billion on the tournament, which will make that record-breaking Russian figure look minuscule. Also, in an effort to avoid the average 106 degree temperature there, the World Cup in Qatar will be moved to winter. On a human level, most of the work is being done by migrants who are working in slave-like conditions and dying in droves. This does not even take into account the laws against things such as drinking alcohol or homosexuality.  The following video explains many of the negative issues as a result of the World Cup in Qatar.

With this as the backdrop and with the still-simmering scandal, it comes as little surprise then that bidding for the 2026 tournament has been put on hold. Additionally, despite FIFA saying there is no legal ground on which to take hosting duties for the 2018 and 2022 World Cups away from Russia and Qatar, many are eager to explore that option as well.

Conclusion

The FIFA scandal far exceeds the traditional borders of sport. The organization is so powerful that it has the ability, directly or indirectly, to boost an unpopular leader and even legitimize states. It also has sponsorships from some the world’s most powerful corporations and is the most popular sport globally. With this in mind then, the recent arrests of FIFA’s top leaders were surprising only in the fact that they actually happened. These men and this organization have been basically untouchable for decades.

Thus, while the U.S. and Swiss indict leaders and promise further action, it is hard to believe any of it will actually happen, or at the very least stick. Even the resignation of Sepp Blatter, despite the ardent support of Vladimir Putin, comes with a caveat. Blatter was elected in a landslide right before his resignation and was allowed to leave on his own terms instead of in hand cuffs, as many feel should be the case.

While its leaders fall like dominoes, FIFA will likely survive this scandal as it survived two world wars, membership issues, and a host of other problems along the way. The real question in the wake of this scandal is, will any of these arrests, indictments, or resignations make this seminal organization less corrupt and more honest? Based on the system in place and its recent elections the answer looks like no.

Resources

Top End Sports: Host Country Selection

MLS Soccer: What is FIFA, Who is Sepp Blatter, and What is All the Fuss About?

Goal: World Cup Bidding Process Explained

FIFA: History of FIFA

Time: These Are the Five Facts That Explain the FIFA Scandal

Five Thirty Eight: How FIFA’s Structure Lends Itself to Corruption

Reuters: Germany Sold Arms to Saudi Arabia to Secure Its Vote for 2006 World Cup

Sports Illustrated: Morocco Beat South Africa in Vote For 2010 World Cup

World.Mic: Seven Big Problems the World Cup Left Behind in Brazil

LA Times: So Many Things Wrong With Qatar World Cup 2022

CNN: FIFA to Suspend Bidding For 2026 World Cup Amid Corruption Scandal

BBC: Vladimir Putin Expresses Support for Blatter

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post FIFA Scandal is No Surprise if You’ve Been Paying Attention appeared first on Law Street.

Recently re-elected FIFA president Joseph S. Blatter, known to the world as Swiss Sepp Blatter, announced Tuesday he will step down from his post as president of the international football association’s governing body, following criticism over a corruption scandal.

While 14 of his colleagues were recently indicted on charges of bribery, money laundering, and racketeering, Blatter was left unscathed and re-elected for his fifth consecutive term as FIFA president on Friday, May 29^th. During his reelection speech, Blatter rejoiced in his continued reign with the words,

I thank you, you have accepted me for the next four years. I will be in command of this boat called FIFA.

 

However, Blatter has not escaped blame from the global public over the years, having been labeled a dictator, among other names, and accused of sexism and racism reaching far beyond claims of corrupt laundering practices. According to BBC News, the global citizens’ movement Avaaz was responsible for starting the #BlatterOut campaign, which began trending on Twitter just days before the election. Gary Linekar, the former English footballer and current sports broadcaster, is one of the many to join the campaign against Blatter, who seems to have been at the head of FIFA corruption since 1991.

FIFA members should vote for the good of football, and get rid of a man who’s reigned over a corrupt organisation for too long. #BlatterOut

— Gary Lineker (@GaryLineker) May 28, 2015

So what on earth was keeping Blatter in power if so much of the world wanted #BlatterOut? The answer, unlike what most commonly believe, is not so much about the power of the dollar—or the supposed tens of millions of dollars involved in the corruption since 1991—as it is the power of a single vote in any given FIFA presidential election. Each of the 209 national member associations that make up FIFA’s Congress receives exactly one equal vote no matter how much land area the nation possesses or how much of the world’s population lives in each nation. According to the Washington Post, this means the tiny Caribbean island of Montserrat has as much a say as World Cup powerhouses Brazil or Germany in the election. After totaling the member nations counted in the presidential election, here is the breakdown by regional confederation:

So, what Blatter needed to do to get reelected was not to convince the world that he is not as corrupt as his colleagues, but to cater to the areas of the world that would ensure his victory, and he did. Blatter has made what was once a largely European organization a globalized organization, by bringing what he calls “developmental programs” to underprivileged parts of Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Despite where the money came from to start these programs, in doing so, Blatter spoke for most of the 54 votes of the Confederation of African Football (CAF)—the largest number of votes held by any of the six continental confederations above. Amaju Pinnick, the current president of the Nigerian Football Federation, has expressed that,

Without Blatter we wouldn’t enjoy all the benefits we enjoy today from FIFA. What Blatter pushes is equity, fairness and equality among the nations. We don’t want to experiment.

It was not Blatter’s years of experience or money that got him reelected; it was his ability to systematically accommodate the parts of the world that hold the most votes.

The sole person who opposed Blatter in the election for president was Qatari Mohammed bin Hammam, but he withdrew from the race after suspension by FIFA’s ethics committee due to allegations that he offered financial incentives to Caribbean Football Union members. The response to corruption by England’s Football Association and its chairman David Bernstein was to postpone the election, to instill credibility back into the process, and to appoint an independent external committee to make recommendations about future election processes. Yet, the FA’s proposal was again put up to the votes of 206 member nations equally and the election moved forward without delay.

Are Blatter’s or any other FIFA administrator’s corrupt practices inevitable in this day and age of soccer as yet another means of politics? Or is Blatter’s attempt to globalize the world by bringing soccer and developmental programs to countries outside of Europe a kind of affirmative action policy that permits or even necessitates some corruption behind the scenes? Whether you answer yes or no to these questions, FIFA’s Executive Committee might consider an election reform of proportional representation by member nations in order to assure that the next FIFA president elected is preferred in power by all parts of the world instead of only by the continent with the most votes.

Jenifer Carter

Jenifer Carter is a member of the University of Virginia Class of 2016. Contact Jenifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Controversial Re-election Forces FIFA President to Resign appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

I was trying really hard to keep my opinion to myself when it came to the Ray Rice, Adrian Peterson, and Jonathan Dwyer domestic violence cases, but I just can’t anymore.

Last night I watched as many different male commentators shared their opinions on ESPN about all things domestic violence and what the NFL should do, and then I read an article this morning that has irritated me beyond belief. Female Soccer star Hope Solo was arrested and charged with domestic violence back in June but there is little coverage of the story. The only news I found about her recently is that she set a new “record while awaiting domestic violence trial.” So Hope gets to live her life, play the sport that she loves, and silently await trial for not only causing injury to a child but also to her sister. Now reports say that she was drunk at the time, which is no excuse! No matter if you are sober, drunk, or have some crazy sleep disorder that causes you to hit someone you should not be left on a pedestal while others are ostracized for causing bodily harm to others as well.

I do not support domestic violence and I certainly have a problem with any woman who states “I don’t believe in domestic violence, but I will say: any woman who can hit a man, a man shouldn’t have to sit there and take the abuse. The abuse goes both ways.” This Ray Rice fan, only identified as Kathy, is out of her mind! No one needs to be laying a hand on anyone in a violent manner. Ever. Both men and women should be able to exercise restraint, you are adults!

Do I believe in corporal punishment? Absolutely. But there is a difference between corporal punishment and domestic violence. Domestic violence is defined as “violent or aggressive behavior within the home, typically involving the violent abuse of a spouse or partner.” Corporal punishment is defined as “punishment administered by an adult (as a parent or a teacher) to the body of a child ranging in severity from a slap to a spanking.”

So while Ray Rice is now an ex-NFL player, Adrian Peterson is on the NFL’s “exempt” list (what is that, like Santa’s naughty and nice list?), and who knows what will happen to Jonathan Dwyer, little miss Hope Solo was able to apologize to the public and go back to work. How is this fair? After all these years of women wanting to be treated as equals we go and do this. We allow a woman to hit not one but two people, apologize, and then go back to work and be praised for a 72nd shutout game with her national team?

Men can’t hit women or children, but apparently women can hit men, women, and children while still being able to go about their lives without being judged by the public and no actions are taken from the league she works for? Yes, her charges seem to be misdemeanors but an arrest and a trial, that is enough for me to feel the need to ostracize her and state that she should have been yanked from the league until her trial was over and resolved.

We do things differently in the south. We were all raised on the idea of getting a spanking. In fact, there may have been a time or two where my Mississippi grandmother would order me outside to the weeping willow tree to grab a switch because I had done something wrong. In all honesty I don’t remember if I ever got a whipping but the threat of it and making me pick out my switch was enough to make me not act up again. I also had a father who was a true military man through and through. I would have to say, in my eyes, my dad was a mix of John Wayne and General Patton. All he ever had to do was give a look and I knew not to do what I was about to do. That is the kind of fear we need to instill in our children today. We shouldn’t coddle them, but we also shouldn’t have to actually harm them, that fear is enough. (For me at least, until I got into my teenage years, but that’s a different story.) I love my dad but even to this day he could scare me to death with that look.

Hope needs a reality check. You don’t get to hit people — even if you’re drunk — and still have a career that influences young women all over the world. Many claim that Rice, Peterson, and Dwyer were role models to children. So is Hope. Maybe, as a parent, you should want your child’s role model to be someone in the community and not a celebrity.

Can we also remember that domestic violence is NOT just violence against women! Women beat their husbands and children, too. We can’t spend weeks talking about the male athletes charged with domestic violence like Rice, Peterson, and Dwyer without acknowledging Solo. It’s sexist and full of exclusion.

—

Allison Dawson (@AllyD528) Born in Germany, raised in Mississippi and Texas. Graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University. Currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative.

Featured image courtesy of [love @ll via Flickr]

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Men Aren’t the Only Superstar Athletes Charged with Domestic Violence appeared first on Law Street.

While the World Cup brought some of the mot talented soccer players to the forefront, it also brought out some of the savviest criminals along with it. Much like the South African World Cup in 2010, spectators venturing to Brazil this summer were told to be wary and vigilant as crime was expected to make a meteoric rise as the games went on. Sadly, they were correct. From the cloning of debit cards to rudimentary muggings, fans from all over the world were victims of crimes during the World Cup

Crime was already on the rise in Rio de Janeiro in the months leading up to the World Cup, with muggings increasing an astounding 60 percent at the infamous Copacabana Beach. According to Rio’s crime statistics, muggings had increased 44 percent in the first four months of this year alone. As Brazil was expecting criminals to take advantage of the wide-eyed tourists exploring the country this summer, they started to “clean up” the infamous favelas. Police presence was amplified in the months leading up to the World Cup, which saw the arrests of dozens of hardened criminals. Despite this, fans still fell victim to crimes throughout the month-long tournament.

Jack Smith, an American who withdrew money in a Rio De Janeiro airport believes that his card was cloned instantaneously and used over the next couple of days to spend $12,000. Luckily, when he noticed the charges he immediately contacted his bank and they were able to cancel the card and cover the losses. “I’ve probably met 60 people here, and 20 have been hit,” Smith told Fox News. Some spectators were not as lucky as Smith and were unable to retrieve their stolen property.

Christian Alvarez, a Chilean fan, had $1,700 stolen from him at gunpoint outside his hotel. He contacted the Chilean consulate to try and get his money back but was unsuccessful. Another Chilean, Fabian Morales, lost his passport as he was celebrating Chile’s win over defending champions Spain.

Takeshi Itai, a Japanese tourist, was visiting a favela in the eastern region of Salvador when five men with guns approached his taxi. Luckily the taxi managed to drive away before the robbery could take place. “I’ll never go into a favela again. I never imagined I would have guns pulled on me,” Itai told the Japanese Times. Unfortunately for Brazil, it seems like the experiences from this World cup may discourage some fans from venturing to Rio for the 2016 Olympics.

At the start of the World Cup, the Brazilian government distributed a brochure detailing what to do in the event of a mugging. “Do not react, scream or ague,” the brochure said. They warned tourists to not carry a lot of cash on them, to not flaunt their valuables, and to do periodic checks to make sure no one was following them.

For those who could afford it, private security companies were available to provide round-the-clock security. iJET, a security company, estimates that between 30,000 to 60,000 people spent at least $10,000 on “enhanced security services,” at this World Cup. A lot of people are venturing down to the South American country not for pleasure, but for business. “These companies are sending their most valuable assets and customers down there,” John Rose, chief operator at iJET said.

Yet with the 25,000 police officers dispatched for the final, a 2-km police perimeter set around the stadium, and hundreds of personal security guards, chaos still ensued throughout the tournament. Fans watching the Brazil vs. Germany game at Fifa’s Fan Fest on Copacabana Beach were forced to flee after a group of masked men conducted a mass robbery, stealing bags and jewelry. An electronic store was looted, gunshots were fired into a large crowd, riots broke out, passports were stolen, fans fought each other, and buses were set ablaze. The buses burned in the neighborhoods of Sao Paulo, Brazil’s largest city; and when the flames were finally put out nineteen buses were destroyed in total.

In my eyes, Brazil has lost this World Cup on all accounts. Brazil certainly lost in on the field after an embarrassing  7-1 defeat by Germany, which will be remembered for decades. It has lost the faith of tourists, the people who traveled to Brazil in hopes of celebrating this joyous event and soaking in the Brazilian culture, but were instead held at gunpoint, robbed, and assaulted. And it has lost the faith of its own people, after spending so much money — $14 billion to be exact — while the country is plagued by massive economic inequality and an ailing economy. We can only hope that in four years, when the World Cup dawns upon us again, Russia will do better.

—

Trevor Smith

Featured image courtesy of [Breno Peck via Flickr]

Trevor Smith

Trevor Smith is a homegrown DMVer studying Journalism and Graphic Design at American University. Upon graduating he has hopes to work for the US State Department so that he can travel, learn, and make money at the same time. Contact Trevor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Brazil Lost the World Cup and the Battle Against Crime appeared first on Law Street.

It’s all anyone watching the World Cup can talk about. Luis Suarez, star striker for Uruguay and Liverpool FC, bit someone again.

FIFA dropped the hammer on him, banning him from nine international matches and four months of all soccer activity. This is being interpreted by the soccer world as a harsh punishment. Even the guy he bit, Italian defender Girogio Chiellini, thinks it is excessive. However, for those of us who live in the real world, it feels like Suarez got off a little easy for basically assaulting somebody. That got me to thinking, how would Suarez fair in front of an American court if Chiellini decided to press charges against him?

First, we must figure out what crime Suarez committed. He obviously assaulted Chielini, but assault is a broad legal term. Which kind of assault did Suarez commit?

The Legal Information Institute defines assault as “intentionally putting another person in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.” Suarez’s chomp definitely fits that description. There is no doubt that biting another person’s shoulder is offensive. I would certainly be offended if someone started trying to eat me.

The next question that needs to be asked is whether this was an aggravated assault or a simple assault. Aggravated assault needs to have an aggravating factor, “such as the intent to inflict serious bodily injury or the use of a dangerous weapon.” Suarez’s teeth are definitely not a dangerous weapon, and I don’t think any reasonable court would count these bite marks as “serious bodily injury.”

As you can see, Suarez barely broke the skin. It’s not like he went full Tyson on the guy and took off a part of his body.

Suarez’s bite would most likely fall under simple assault, an assault that lacks an aggravating factor. Since there was no weapon or fear of serious harm, Suarez’s assault would be classified as a misdemeanor in most states. This means he could receive a jail sentence from six months to a full year depending on the state in which the assault was committed.

Most judges would probably let him serve out his sentence on probation. This could include community service, educational programs, or house arrest.

But wait! This is not the first time Suarez has bitten someone on the field. He bit Ottman Bakkal while playing for Ajax in 2010.

He also bit Branislav Ivanovic while playing for Liverpool in 2013.

This makes Suarez a repeat offender, which would probably result in stricter punishment. For example, if the crime took place in Texas, a repeat offense would land Suarez with a fine of up to $2,000 and automatic jail time of up to 180 days.

Suarez could be in real trouble if his crime took place in California, which has a Three-Strikes law, which forces a mandatory sentence of 25 years to life for anyone who has committed three felonies, or two felonies and a misdemeanor. If Suarez were particularly unlucky and had two of his cases heard by judges who believed his bites were aggravated assaults, Suarez could land himself a serious prison sentence.

Of course, Suarez is a professional athlete, which means that he will never serve any jail time or legally binding punishment for what he has done. Instead, he just won’t be allowed to play with the other athletes for a little while. You know, like a time out.

Welcome to the world of sports. A place where you are legally allowed to do things like this:

And this:

And this:

So, the next time you decide to bite someone, elbow someone in the face, or just knock someone out, ask yourself this important question: am I paid millions of dollars to play a game? If the answer is no, you should probably refrain from any violent activity. If the answer is yes, go for it! What’s the worst that could happen?

—

Eric Essagof (@ericmessagof) is a student at The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [George via Flickr]

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The People vs. Luis Suarez appeared first on Law Street.

“According to the mural, soccer is the opium of the masses, the bread and circuses of today’s Brazil: let them eat football!”
-The Guardian

On Thursday, June 12, 2014 police clad in riot gear and wielding clubs fired tear gas, rubber bullets, and noise bombs into crowds of protesters in São Paulo, about 10 km away from the Corinthians arena where the first game of the 2014 FIFA World Cup took place. Six people were injured, and three protesters arrested. This is only a sample of the protests surrounding the soccer tournament over the past year. Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, the country’s first female leader of the so-called Workers’ Party, has subsequently deployed 100,000 police and 57,000 military to guard stadiums, teams’ hotels, and training grounds for the duration of the World Cup.

Such incendiary scenes of social protest in Brazil might conjure images of France in 1789 at the eve of revolution. Parallels abound: the people demand basic services in a grossly unequal society, and their government responds flippantly with gestures of added luxury for the wealthy; ‘Let them Eat Football.’ Brazil hosts the FIFA World Cup at an estimated cost of $11.5 billion in preparations, dolled out from public coffers, not to mention the lives of eight workers who died while constructing grandiose stadiums across the country. The expenditures for the most expensive World Cup in history are well documented (here, here and here) as are the nefarious practices of FIFA (here and here); an additional $12 billion is being spent on projects to host the 2016 Summer Olympics in Rio De Janeiro. Meanwhile, the Brazilian people lack basic healthcare services, affordable public transportation and education, adequate housing and security, while suffering from trenchant institutionalized racial and economic discrimination.

According to President Rousseff, anti-FIFA demonstrations across the county are part of a “systemic campaign” against the Brazilian government, yet protesters do not see their plight as one isolated to the country. “The crisis is worldwide,” an anonymous member of the Brazilian anarchist Black Bloc group told the Global Post. “People are seeing that representative democracy doesn’t represent anyone — here in Brazil, in London, in Greece or anywhere.” And political graffiti is the undercurrent of this global cacophony of dissent.

Graffiti that reads “FIFA go home” or “Fuck the World Cup” have appeared on walls from São Paul to Rio De Janeiro, distilling the disdain of the Brazilian people into iconic slogans that they repeat during protests. Murals that celebrate the World Cup have been vandalized; a mural in Rio de Janeiro depicting Neymar da Silva Santos was painted over so the figure wore a hood used iconically by the anarchist Black Bloc. The most pervasive political graffiti, however, are murals that explicitly illustrate the concerns of protesters: One piece by Brazilian artist Cranio depicts a man flushing money down the toilet bowl; in another, the 2014 World Cup mascot points a rifle at a message that reads, ‘We Want Education’ and ‘Not Repression’. Protests iterated at demonstrations physically are thus represented on walls throughout the country.

“People already have the feeling and that image condensed this feeling,” São Paulo-based graffiti artist Paulo Ito told Slate in May when photos of his mural in Rio de Janeiro began circulating through social media. The piece shows a weeping, emaciated Brazilian boy, fork and knife in hand, being served a football on a silver plate. “The message of this painting is powerful,” the Guardian interpreted. “Amid the sporting hysteria, poverty not only goes on, but the lives of the marginalized have arguably been made worse.” The image has since gone viral accumulating 3,310 likes and 4,749 shares on Ito’s Facebook account alone; on the popular Facebook page TV Revolta it has been shared and liked more than 40,000 times. Graffiti is a “good way to expose the country’s problems,” Paulo Ito explained. “If the government doesn’t want to expose these things it’s because they feel ashamed. If they feel ashamed by this they might take it more seriously – at least, that’s our intention.”

Artists B. Shanti and A. Signl of Captain Broderline, an international graffiti collective that was outlawed in Egypt last year, share this aim, producing their own political art in Brazil. “We just want to support the people on the street and give them like a voice that when all the people come here and look at the nice World Cup they also see the resistance movement.” Their mural, organized with Amnesty International Brazil, stands across from a police headquarters in Rio de Janeiro, displaying construction shovels attached to a giant soccer ball demolishing favelas along a regal red carpet — it is dedicated to all Brazilians evicted during the preparations of the World Cup.

But can such graffiti be harbingers of revolution? “Look at these images from far enough back – from the point of view of world television, with its cameras aimed at the football pitch – and they become a sideshow to the spectacle in the stadiums,” said Jonathon Jones in the Guardian. “But perhaps this is one of those moments when the images break open, the dreams and nightmares of society spill from fantasy into reality, and the hungry kid gets fed. In that case, these paintings will become icons of a revolution started by sport. It is, however, more likely they are simply adding a bit of a sting to the usual, overfamiliar opiate.” In the case of Brazil, we cannot hold up graffiti’s illegality as an indication of its political effectiveness. Graffiti has been legal in Rio de Janeiro since 2009, when the Brazilian government passed Law 706/07; today, artists can mark public buildings, including columns, walls, and construction siding, as well as private property if done with the consent of the owners. As compared to Egypt, where the government has banned political graffiti, Brazil has a relatively liberal policy regarding street art, and why not? — public art has been statistically proven to increase the value of real estate.

There is, however, definite political meaning in the graffiti critiquing the government and the World Cup; and what is more significant, in my opinion, is the solidarity that this graffiti has given to the disparate protests in Brazil. All voices rally behind the slogans echoed by the graffiti in the street — eg, “FIFA go home.” The inclusion of international graffiti collectives like Captain Borderline, moreover, aligns Brazilian dissidents with those around the world. Allusions to the French Revolution are not overstated. “When people go on the street and create pressure they become political actors,” said an anonymous Brazilian anarchist, this “new generation is very radical.” And graffiti plays a fundamental role in making it so.

—

Ryan D. Purcell (@RyanDPurcell) holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York.

Featured image courtesy of [Jordi Bernabeu Farrus via Flickr]

Ryan Purcell

Ryan D. Purcell holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York. Contact Ryan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post World Cup Brazil: ‘Let Them Eat Football!’ appeared first on Law Street.

As soccer fans around the globe eagerly tune in to the FIFA World Cup in Brazil, it is important to take a hard look at the world’s most beloved tournament and its impact on the host countries. It may initially seem that host country selection is a tremendous honor and will result in an economic boom; however, systemic corruption and bribery suggest that not all money is good money.

The Benefits and Impacts of Hosting

Following the announcement on October 30, 2001 that Brazil would be the Host Nation of the 2014 FIFA World Cup, the developing country was propelled into a state of pride and eager anticipation. Five-time world champions and birthplace to an abundance of soccer legends such as Pelé and Ronaldinho, Brazil initially viewed hosting the 20th World Cup as an honor. The sport is not only revered at a near religious sacredness in Brazil, but additionally, the perceived economic benefits would be tantalizing for any nation.

Tourism

• The final match of the 2010 World Cup between Spain and the Netherlands drew in at least 1 billion viewers, with the 2014 games expecting to surpass that number.
• 3.7 million tourists will descend upon the country during the tournament’s four-week run.
• A projected $11.1 billion will be spent on hotels, airlines, advertising, and various other expenditures.

Job Creation

• Brazil estimates that 380,000 jobs were created because of the World Cup.

The preliminary sense of privilege, however, began to wear away as obstacles continued to emerge and speculation of Brazil’s inability to host the tournament could not be alleviated.

World Cup 2014: Brazil

How is it Financed?

The country’s original plan claimed that private donors would finance the development and renovation of stadiums. Much to the dismay of Brazilians, this plan has greatly diverted. According to The Wall Street Journal’s John Lyons and Loretta Chao, taxpayers have paid $3.6 billion for the stadiums. São Paulo will be the arena for the opening game, a brand new stadium with 62,000 seats that came with a  $550 million price tag. The stadium will go to the Corinthians soccer team after the Cup, but since the team was unable to provide enough private lenders, the stadium’s financing ended up coming from $200 million in tax breaks and government loans. The 2014 World Cup has accumulated a cost of $11.5 billion, which is twice the amount of the previous two World Cups in South Africa and Germany.

Reported by the Pew Research Center, 72 percent of Brazilians are dissatisfied with the way things are going in their country. Additionally, 61 percent of citizens believe hosting the event has been damaging for Brazil because it takes funding away from schools, heath care, and other public services.

Location

Manaus Stadium is another example of poor planning. The 39,000-seat stadium was constructed in the capital city in the state of Amazonas while its greatest local games scarcely attract 1,500 spectators. Since the city lacks a notable soccer team, the stadium will be rendered useless after the Cup — a significant reason as to why private lenders once again did not contribute and the blunt of the cost fell on to the citizens.

Corruption

Following the historical trend, many corruption allegations have surfaced in the lead up to this year’s World Cup. One such example, according to a report by a city auditor, is that the cost to build a stadium in Brasília was $636 million, a 68 percent increase compared to the initial projected cost. Andrade Gutierrez S.A., the builder of the stadium, chose not to comment on the “grave irregularities” found in the report. These abnormalities, such as transportation being over-billed and a 12.1 percent loss rate on steel, were a source of the distended budget.

With $4 billion spent on stadiums and an insufficient amount of funds allocated to public services, the people of Brazil have taken to strikes and protest to promote their needs.

Civil unrest

Movimento Passe Livre (Free Fare Movement), which advocates for free public transportation, gained attention on June 13, 2013 when police turned a peaceful protest into a place of terror. Officers fired rubber bullets and firing grenades at bystanders and fleeing protesters. Those who were trapped in the mayhem were subjected to inhaling pepper spray and tear gas. The movement quickly spread across a dozen state capitals. These protests occurred simultaneously with the Confederations Cup matches. BBC Sport’s Ben Smith reported that throughout the June 6, 2013 match between Uruguay and Nigeria, “the deep rumblings, loud bangs and the crackle of police weapons could be heard in the streets nearby,” leaving many with questions if the social problems Brazil is facing would hinder its ability to host the Cup a year later.

Subway Strikes

Close to the opening ceremonies, subway strikes erupted in Sao Paulo. Approximately four million people a day use the subway. The workers hoped that the strike would lead to increase in pay and better working conditions; however, the São Paulo court ruled that striking over pay was illegal.

The Homeless Demand Answers

In May 2014, the Movimento dos Trabalhadores Sem-Teto (Homeless Workers’ Movement, or MTST) and the Fronte de Resistência Urbana (Urban Resistance Front) — both organizations representing homeless citizens — protested 20,000 strong in São Paulo. The protesters demanded answers about how the government spent public funds on the World Cup. The protesters were able to garner international attention and disrupt traffic for more than 150 miles.

World Cup 2010: South Africa

Match fixing

The New York Times‘ Declan Hill and Jeré Longman investigated incidents of match fixing that took place in five exhibition matches during the South Africa 2010 World Cup. Football 4U International was the Singapore-based company that arranged the match rigging.

“At least five matches and possibly more” were manipulated, while “as many as 15 matches were targets.” The exhibition matches were exploited for betting purposes, especially in underground Asian markets. In a report obtained by The New York Times, it is estimated that the illegal betting markets in Asia total hundreds of billions of dollars annually.

Football 4U International

The South Africa-Guatemala friendly was one of the matches fixed by Football 4U International. Ibrahim Chaibou was the referee supplied for that game, receiving $60,000 for manipulating a 5-0 South African victory.

Steve Goddard, the acting head of refereeing for the South African Football Association at the time of the 2010 World Cup, was offered a bribe by Football 4U International executive Wilson Raj Perumal. The bribe of $3,500 was for the organization to supply referees for the exhibition matches.

These revelations have spurred FIFA to work closely with law enforcement officials to patrol potential match fixing during the 2014 games.

World Cup 2022: Qatar

Appalling Living and Working Conditions

While Brazil’s hosting capability has been in question, it is nearly unanimous that Qatar hosting the World Cup in 2022 is a treacherous affair. In an interview with Swiss broadcaster RTS about if choosing Qatar to host in 2022 was a mistake, Sepp Blatter, FIFA’s president, said “Yes, it was a mistake of course, but one makes lots of mistakes in life.” Journalists, fans, and officials directly connected to FIFA are calling for a new vote if it is confirmed that Qatar won because of a corrupt system. The BBC reported that Football Association chairman Greg Dyke would support a new vote.

In an interview with ESPN published June 1, 2014, Sharan Burrow of the International Union Confederation (ITUC) was asked, “How do Qataris view the people who are there building this vast infrastructure for a country with only 200,000 citizens?” Her response came as a chilling summation of the hostility,  “I don’t think they see them as human.”

Reported by Richard Conway of BBC, “Almost 200 Nepalese men are reported to have died last year working on construction projects in Qatar,” and “up to 4,000 workers could die by 2022 if current laws and attitudes persist.”

According to the ITUC Special Report “The Case Against Qatar:”

• Employers are demanding deposits of $275 paid by workers before they are allowed to leave for holidays.
• 191 Nepalese workers died in 2013 and 169 in 2012.
• 218 Indian nationals died in 2013, 237 died in 2012 and 239 in 2011.
• On average 20 Indian migrants died per month in 2013.

Qatar follows a ‘kefala’ employment system, which ties migrant workers to their sponsor companies. Human rights groups and trade unions are highly critical of this system as it requires exit visas that do not allow workers to leave without their employer’s permission.

With eight years left until Qatar is set to host the World Cup, these numbers are frightening to both human rights activists and soccer spectators.

How Bribery Gave Qatar the World Cup

In addition to the current welfare of the workers, allegations that Qatar won the bid due to fraudulent measures have also surfaced. Qatar’s former top football official, Mohamed Bin Hammam, stands at the center of it all.

• The Sunday Times obtained numerous leaked e-mails stating how bin Hammam paid off and lobbied numerous senior officials to support Qatar’s bid.
• According to Mike Singer of CBS, “Regarding former FIFA VP Jack Warner, Bin Hammam was accused of paying him more than $1.6 million in order to garner his support. Warner eventually resigned in 2011 to avoid an investigation connected to Bin Hammam’s failed attempt to become FIFA president.“
• Bin Hammam is also said to have paid up to $200,000 to multiple African soccer associations through ten slush funds in his company. In turn for receiving the money, the associations persuaded the top four FIFA officials in Africa to vote how Bin Hammam desired.

Corruption is nothing new to Bin Hammam as he has been banned for life by FIFA twice. In 2012 following a natural gas deal with Thailand (home to Worawi Makudi who is a FIFA board ally), Bin Hammam was expelled based on financial wrongdoing. Supplementing the public’s disdain for how events are transpiring thus far in Qatar, FIFA’s top sponsors have vocalized their displeasure. Visa has requested FIFA to “maintain strong ethical standards and operate with transparency.” Adidas, FIFA’s longest-standing sponsor and ball provider for the World Cup said, “The negative tenor of the public debate around FIFA at the moment is neither good for football nor for FIFA and its partners.” Meeting opposition by six of FIFA’s sponsors — who will pay $700 million collectively over four years toward the 2014 games — are sure to influence how FIFA handles the situation.

Resources

Primary 

The New York Times: Referees Exchange Letter 

Additional

International Trade Union Confederation: “The Case Against Qatar”

FIFA: Brazil Confirmed as 2014 Hosts

Wall Street Journal: Hopes Fades in Brazil for a World Cup Economic Boost

Soccerly: World Cup Expected to Bring 3.7 Million Tourist Invasion

Pew Research Center: Brazilian Discontent Ahead of World Cup

Wall Street Journal: São Paulo Subway Workers to Strike

International Business Times: No to the Cup: Homeless Workers’ Association Leads 20,000 People in Sao Paulo to Demonstrate Against World Cup Costs

The New York Times: Fixed Soccer Matches Cast Shadow Over World Cup

Economist: The Streets Erupt

BBC: Qatar World Cup 2022: FIFA Vice-President ‘Would Support’ Re-Vote

ESPN : Qatar’s World Cup

BBC: Qatar 2022: Plans to Protect World Cup Workers Unveiled

CBS: Report: Former FIFA Exec Paid $5 Million to Support Qatar WC Bid

Guardian: World Cup 2014: Brazil Still Facing Issues With 100 Days to Go 

Alex Hill

Alex Hill studied at Virginia Tech majoring in English and Political Science. A native of the Washington, D.C. area, she blames her incessant need to debate and write about politics on her proximity to the nation’s capital.

The post The Dark Side of the World Cup: Corruption, Bribery, and Civil Unrest appeared first on Law Street.