I don’t know much about the World Cup – how important it is to national pride (or coffers) – but it seems to me there’s a bit of a double-bind here.
By all criteria England had the best bid but lost. Why? Because just before FIFA (after heavy lobbying from all sides, Russia excepted) the Sunday Times and the BBC had unpatriotically sought to expose shenanigans in the dealing of some FIFA officials. Had the media been more patriotic, the argument goes, they would have kept shtum in order not to annoy FIFA, or else run their exposés after the event. The fact that one FIFA bigwig made dark mutterings about the British media as he went in to vote seemed, in retrospect, to vindicate this charge.
Then what? Some say that President – beg his pardon – Prime Minister Putin didn’t bother to attend the final meeting because he already knew Russia had it in the bag (nudge nudge wink wink); others that clearly, since England was the outstanding candidate, the voting process must have been corrupt and England should never seek to host the World Cup again until FIFA’s system becomes more transparent. Yet others , though fewer (I would have added ‘sadly’ but won’t for fear of being sued in our lethally expensive courts), that the Sunday Times and BBC were to be congratulated for uncovering a deeply flawed set-up, no matter that doing so would stymie England’s chances. Better to be without than be party to the corruption by holding fire.
I have no idea who is right. But since Russia IS going to host the 2018 World Cup there will be plenty of opportunities for Russian fans to demonstrate their multi-racial and sexual tolerance for all the world’s tele-viewers to see. That must be a good thing. No?