Posted by Bobby McMahon of FSC and Soccer Report Extra

Bobby McMahon-
written on December 1, 2010 and posted to Soccer Report Extra

Over the last 15 years I have worked for a number Bid Committees seeking to secure rights to host international, regional and national sporting events. I have helped to develop technical evaluation criteria and have evaluated Bids. I have also been a keen but neutral observer at meetings where awards have been made or the lead up to such events.

Within a matter of hours we will know which countries have secured the rights to host the 2018 World Cup Finals and the 2022 World Cup Finals. The winners will delude themselves that their awards were simply based on being the best and losers will in public be magnanimous, but in private be crest-fallen and dismissive of the process and the men who rejected their Bids.

This particular round of World Cup bidding as been particularly vile given the allegations - some considered proven - of corruption both new and old. Add to this the dynamic of collusion and vote trading and it all adds up to a thoroughly repugnant process. The responsibility for corruption and collusion sits firmly at the door of FIFA.

One only needs to contrast how quickly the IOC has moved to investigate the allegations made against FIFA Vice President and IOC member Issa Hayatou while Sepp Blatter's FIFA sits back and dismisses the assertions with a "let them eat cake" attitude.

The Olympic movement has already gone through their Waterloo and are at pains to ensure that it doesn't happen again. When the successful Salt Lake bid for the 2012 Winter Olympics was shown to have been dirty the IOC was forced to move to try and root out the corruption and bribery that threatened to overwhelm the organization.

However, the IOC's hand was not forced by public opinion directly but by the sponsors who regularly anti-up hundreds of millions of dollars to attach their companies to the "ideals" of the Olympic rings. It was under the threat of losing multi-millions that the IOC finally acted and set in motion a system and structure that more rigorously controls the bidding process.

Until sponsors make the same demands on FIFA to clean up their internal organization nothing will change. Of course it is paradoxical that one of reasons put forward for jointly awarding 18 and 22 was in fact leveraging sponsors. It may in fact work (leveraging sponsors that is) but the decision has only made a murky pool even darker with allegations of vote swapping and collusion.

This issue provides a perfect illustration of how much the world of sports has changed over the last half century. Politics have always been a factor in such decisions but over the years such considerations have become entwined with the increasing commercial opportunities through the media and television attention that has grown exponentially.

The combination has made for a potent cocktail and money and resulting power has undoubtedly become a sporting and business aphrodisiac. But what if you take the 2010 reality and subtract media, TV, and money - what do you get? You probably get something like the meeting held in London in 1966.

In 1964 Mexico had been awarded the right to host the 1970 World Cup Finals. But rather than selecting a host for the 1974 Finals, FIFA actually named the hosts right through to 1982 - that was 16 years in advance.

Both West Germany and Spain submitted bids for 74 and 82 (these were the days when the award rotated between the Americas and Europe) so Spain stood aside and allowed West Germany the rights to 1974 and vice versa for 1982. Bizarrely Mexico still had a bid on the table for the 1978 Finals even though they were to be the 1970 hosts.

Argentina had lost the 1970 race (and later also failed to qualify) but were acclaimed the 78 hosts when Mexico stepped aside. The whole process was marked by a much more civil attitude to the problem but such an approach will never return.

Later today why you should not be sucked in by World Cup Award predictions and Bid analyzes.