Our World Cup was called a production of corruption. Our weather was criticized, and our society was mischaracterized as one full of couch-bound boors who wouldn’t know a soccer ball if it hit them in the head.
We now know all of those things to be false. The 1994 World Cup was a landmark event not only in America, but in international soccer. Arguably, the '94 Cup changed the nature of the entire event -- and not many countries can lay claim such bold success.
But back then, the football world expected disaster. Right up to the first kick, the USA was under unceasing pressure. There was even a point when we were threatened with having the Cup stripped.
Qatar will now face 12 years of the same sort of scrutiny we should know well. Their politics, their climate, their human rights records and their finances will be dissected ad nauseum. Contrary to what many think, the Qataris welcome the attention, for they know from past history that the Cup can indeed change their society in ways big and small. The 2002 World Cup in Korea brought lasting change to that nation in completely unpredicted ways. Why can’t an Arab World Cup do the same?
Moreover, FIFA’s decisions last Thursday are neither radical nor out of character. In fact, since FIFA decided to take a gamble with the USA, FIFA has held true to a general pattern of alternating established venues with more experimental ones.
USA 1994 was followed by France for 1998. That World Cup was in turn followed up by a gamble -- the first co-hosted Cup and first Asian Cup ever, in Korea and Japan. In 2006, FIFA went back to Europe, with the German Cup, then followed it up with the first African World Cup. In 2014, the Cup will return to Brazil for the second time, then move to another European venue, Russia. Then, the Cup will make its way to the Middle East for the first time, another gamble.
So why is this so controversial?
These are questions that, so far, disappointed Americans haven’t been able to confront or answer. As a result, a lot of the hot air that has been issued in the global media has been met with a mixture of disappointment and bafflement in the Arab world. They also, correctly, sense a bit of hypocrisy at work here: for example, it’s ironic that Americans are willing to give NCAA Division 1 football a free pass while fulminating about sports corruption overseas.
That said, part of the fault for this reaction does lie with FIFA. They have been painted as a corrupt and reactionary organization, and it was disappointing to see that FIFA’s elders were more interested in punishing England for its media’s dogged reporting, than in using the opportunity to shed light on a maddeningly opaque process.
The way FIFA handled the World Cup bids invited collusion, and begged for manipulation. The fact that members of the executive committee apparently didn’t even read the inspection reports that FIFA commissioned makes you wonder why bidders bothered with extravagant and expensive tours. Finally, had FIFA taken the opportunity to shed light on the process -- instead of retreating behind closed doors like robber barons of old -- a lot of the ill will and cynicism generated by these decisions could have been avoided.
But part of the fault lies in ourselves, and it’s sadly illuminating that we cannot see what the rest of the world apparently is able to.
--The USA’s bid also suffered from a political deficit. The bid was pushed forward as part of a legacy for American soccer, and the U.S. Soccer Federation’s current leaders. As part of the bid, those men made the case that spending vast amounts of money that otherwise could have gone to improve the American game should instead go to a big-ticket bid; implicit in that approach was the challenge to produce the political skills to get it done. It’s now obvious that they either lack that finesse, or have far too little credibility in the halls of FIFA. Either is damning.
The real losers in the wake of the failed bid are the players, coaches, and fans who were denied resources that might have otherwise been spent on improving what serious soccer people agree is a badly-damaged development system.
And, now, comes the real hard work. The stuff that America needs to do to become a desirable venue for a major sporting event will require listening, patience, and a willingness to shake up an ossified system. Infrastructure is never sexy, but the fact is that at too many levels, the American game is unattractive, poorly played, and badly coached. Unless Americans are willing to push for wholesale change, and then roll up their sleeves, and do the work with some humility, this won’t change.
Sadly, I am afraid this is wishful thinking. Of late, Americans have not shown a willingness to listen, or a willingness to reexamine systems that clearly aren’t working. It’s not just in soccer -- it’s an infection that is ravaging this country. We don’t seem to be able to make the tough decisions any more, and in so doing, we’ve created a culture of avoidance, one that says no to everything that might upset someone, instead of saying yes and taking the bold steps. That, in a nutshell, is why, as MLS commissioner Don Garber astutely noted, that FIFA felt that the USA didn’t deserve the Cup.
The question now is will American soccer turn inward, and continue to regress? Will it embrace new ideas and new leaders, to go forward? Or, will it blame others, wallow in nihilism and wither?
Jamie Trecker is a senior writer for FoxSoccer.com covering the UEFA Champions League, European and world football.
