Students protesting at the National Congress in June this year, bemoaning massive World Cup spending. Photo by Semilla Luz via flickr.

“For the Game. For the World.” goes the motto of FIFA, world football’s governing body. Yet, there seems to be a hollow ring to it following the recent conclusion of the Confederations Cup in Brazil, which served as a “dry run” for the country preparing to host the World Cup next year. The hosts walked away victorious, trouncing Spain 3-0 in the final at Rio de Janeiro’s Maracana stadium. Yet even before the final whistle, tear gas used by police on protesters drifted in to the newly built stadium from outside,where the fiasco of 2 million protesters, 5 deaths, 223 casualties and 519 arrests served as a detraction from brilliantly exciting football which simply could not be ignored. These protests not only exemplify doubts cast on FIFA’s credibility as a governing organization, but also concerns on how multinational companies are increasingly grating on local communities.

The Brazilian government stated in 2007 that the £3bn cost of constructing seven new stadiums and renovating a further five for the 2014 competition was to be largely funded by private investment. This would enable the state to concentrate its finances on infrastructure around the tournament that would supposedly provide a lasting legacy – in classrooms, on roads, in hospitals and at airports. In reality though, it is the taxpayer that has shouldered much of the burden for these glitzy stadiums, which possess little use beyond the 2014 competition, whilst public infrastructure projects have stalled.

When the Sao Paulo mayor attempted a 10 reals (6p) price hike in bus fees on June 1, undercurrents of public unrest ignited into riots. Like in many metropolises, public transport is popular: it is cheap, clean, and reduces congestion. As the national media began to focus on the Confederations Cup, protesters thought it unfair that the wealth of global football could not pay for itself when there are more pressing demands on state finances over public policy matters in Brazil.

The protests escalated: what was once a clash over bus fares became a wider debate about governance in Brazil. Corruption, poor public services, increasing inflation and public spending were all targets of criticism. Brazil is now the fifth largest economy in the world, and the improved living standards have led to correspondingly enhanced expectations. As Professor Rodrigo Gueron of Rio de Janeiro University told the BBC, “the middle class and the poor (all) want more. We want our rights, our voices to be heard, we want a fair and transparent government.”

It is no wonder then that FIFA has inadvertently come under particular criticism from protesters. As Romário de Souza Faria, Brazilian World Cup winner-turned-politician said on an interview on Brazilian television, “the money spent on the stadium in Brasilia could be used to build 150,000 houses for low income families. FIFA comes to our country and sets up a state within a state… it will make a profit of 4bn reals (£1.8bn) which should provide 1bn (£290m) in tax, but they will not pay anything. They come, set up the circus, they spend nothing and they take everything with them.”

Critics say it is FIFA that has dictated who gains what from the tournament. As a not-for-profit association in Swiss law, FIFA pays no tax on commercial income from World Cups. At Germany’s World Cup in 2006, FIFA paid £440,000 of tax to the German government, whilst posting profits of £1.94bn (predominantly through broadcasting deals and ticket sales) for the four years up to the tournament. In Brazil it shoulders none of the infrastructure costs but demands tax exemptions. One particular controversy is FIFA’s insistence that alcohol be made available at stadiums (in line with a sponsorship deal with Budweiser), even though consumption is illegal at football matches in Brazil.

FIFA officials have not helped to dispel this image. When responding to the protests in a press conference, FIFA President Sepp Blatter said, “They are not our problem… it is a political problem.” He said the protestors “should not use football to make their demands heard”; he refused to talk about the internal issues of Brazil. His parting statement on the tournament was that “FIFA has come out of this stronger, with our image enhanced. When we say football connects people, it connected people in the stadium, perhaps unfortunately it also connected people in the street.” These comments however seem to simply gloss over serious security issues for the Brazilian authorities and the criticism regarding FIFA’s vested interests in the country.

A FIFA spokesperson defended the organisation on CNN last month, claiming that “FIFA obtains none of its revenue from public funds of the host country.” An Ernst & Young Terco study estimated that the event would inject R$112.8 billion (£33 billion) into the Brazilian economy by 2014. Furthermore, some costs, such as the prize money for the tournament, will be taxable. In all, the study found that Brazil could expect to gain up to £3bn additional tax revenue from the tournament. The world governing body can thus argue that the net benefit to Brazil’s economy dwarfs FIFA’s tax break of £440,000 .

Sepp Blater’s remarks can also be justified. As Professor Simon Chadwick of Coventry University, an expert in sports management, told this writer, “FIFA is in an invidious position… it has to try and satisfy fans (and) commercial interests. It cannot win.” In other words, FIFA walked into a national debate about public spending and the role of the state in Brazil’s development. Chadwick draws a parallel with Starbucks: the coffeehouse conglomerate has generated an ethical, fair-trade branding image, yet weaves through tax loopholes to grant itself a favourable position in the market. Similarly, FIFA getting tax breaks as the state hikes prices for public transport definitely not good PR.

Nevertheless, critics will not be satisfied. Journalist Christopher Gaffney, from Rio, told CNN that FIFA’s “fair-play” ethos should apply to their financial affairs as well as footballers’ behaviour. “FIFA should be obliged to follow the pre-existing tax laws in the host countries that apply to other international sports non-governmental organisations and their corporate partners.”

Still, Chadwick notes that Blatter’s comments on Brazil are emblematic of a governing body no longer fit for purpose: “FIFA should have seen (these problems) coming!”. A continuous stream of scandals, opaque elections, as well as a gamut of terms set for tournament organisation all point to an institution wholly unaccountable to its constituent members. Blatter himself has been president for 15 years, winning his last election uncontested, despite having been personally implicated in sexism, racism and homophobia scandals, while his organisation was embroiled in ongoing investigations about corruption and bribe-taking at the highest level. At any other multinational organisation this would surely lead to a restructuring at a senior level. Whereas others, such as the International Olympic Committee, reformed to become transparent and accountable, FIFA remains opaque with its head in the sand.

In justifying FIFA’s relevance, Blatter told a press conference, “The World Cup provides practically 90% of the income of FIFA to ensure we can develop the game around the world. Hope is in football. We play football in all perturbed countries… Look at European countries, (where) there is social unrest… football is still played.”  But in doing so, Blatter mistakenly assumes football and FIFA are synonymous.

FIFA refuses to accept the unenviable challenge of juggling commercial and societal pressures, let alone addressing any conflict of interest. In the modern game where the same ball unites cultures, countries and languages, only an organisation that accepts regional variation in practices, customs and laws can cater to a truly global audience of 209 member states. If a host nation’s customs are ignored in favour of global commercial pressures then the current model for football associations’ organisation is broken and must be reassessed. Football means different things for different cultures. The world governing body must bear this in mind if it is to avoid future criticism. If not, FIFA’s attempts to live up to its motto “For the Game. For the World.” are but futile aspirations.