FIFA: POLICY OF STRATEGIC AMBIGUITY ON FOOTBALL PLAYERS' ON-FIELD DISPLAY OF RELIGIOSITY!©
(a.k.a., Pragmatism and Paradox of Profit, Pox and Purity)©
--Attorney Patryk Utulu

As a hugely successful, multi-billion dollar business enterprise, which so far, has successfully created the perception that it is owned-by-the-world, and therefore “ownerless,” FIFA has a billion reasons to be tolerant of football players’ ostentatious on-field display of religious piety. After all, FIFA is aware that even in our rapidly secularizing world, majority of football followers are people who are either religiously-observant, or at least, tolerant of religion. Despite what you hear a majority of people on earth don’t hate religion. People don’t hate religion per se. People just hate other peoples’ religion.

CONTEXT tends to bring better clarity so a brief re-introduction of FIFA is useful. The Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) was founded on May 21, 1904 to govern national football associations. Despite marketing itself like one, FIFA is not a philanthropic organization. It is, first and always, a profit-oriented enterprise with powerful financial stakeholders [mostly European nations in collaboration with multinational corporations in Asia, Europe and North America] who make millions of dollars in yearly profits by marketing products, fame and physique. Far removed from the patriotic chants of cheering global audiences – and operating from corporate boardrooms and V.I.P. boxes – these financial stakeholders have two primary objectives: (1) ensure that FIFA uses every technological tool (public relations and mass media) to expand football’s fan base from slums to suburbs, and from every house on every hill to every village in every valley; (2) provide corporate and public relations infrastructure to enable FIFA achieve objective #1 without attracting competition and/or controversies.

But the world is an irritable polygamy of cultures, politics, religions and regional idiosyncrasies!

PRAGMATISM is great but not magical! By successfully marketing the perception that it is owned-by-the-world FIFA also created expectation in billions of people that their biases will have central consideration in its decisions. Starting in the 1960’s FIFA adopted a 3-prong global strategy: (1) Grow the game by developing pockets of indigenous talents around the world, (2) Maintain fan loyalty in existing football markets by participating in token but visible social programs, and (3) Avoid controversies by avoiding issues of cultures/politics/religion. Indeed, so faithful was FIFA to its policy of avoidance (worried about alienating ticket-buying fans in Europe) that it didn’t begin to seriously confront overt racism against players by other players, and rich unruly fan clubs, until just very recently.

21ST CENTURY ISSUES! Like all global actors, FIFA has had to deal with a new world filled with new possibilities and petty insecurities. Unfortunately, bureaucracies are creatures of habit so FIFA tried to solve modern problems with outdated solutions. For example, when developing nations demanded (i) Stronger representation in FIFA’s Executive Committee, (ii) Greater financial transparency, (iii) More slots at World Cup Finals, (iv) Profit-Sharing, (v) Compensation for houses demolished to build world cup stadiums, (vi) Affordable tickets for low wealth nations, (vii) Display of religious/cultural insignia, (viii) Reducing the suffocating presence of corporate sponsors, etc., FIFA often responded not by addressing the issues but by spending millions of dollars on commercial outreach, public relation campaigns, and high profile visits by famous players on the mistaken belief that all that glitters is gold. Sometimes FIFA simply avoided the issues outright by declaring them “too political” or too “localized.”

TRADITION VS. MODERNITY! FIFA’s greatest weakness is that even though its products are marketed to mass audiences it seldom cultivated horizontal relationships with grassroots community organizations. Instead, FIFA relies on aging sport legends, models and social playmakers as vertical spokespersons. That approached worked well in past decades when superstars were rarely seen in public. But in our current autobiographical, Facebook/YouTube world of oversaturated images, the words of superstars has fleeting durability. Also, outside of their comfort zones stars are unpredictable. Often, they used FIFA’s platform to publicize not what FIFA wanted but instead, the social/cultural/political issues the stars care about. [Hmmm, OK, now you know why FIFA instituted the 30-seconds transmission delay policy].

The paradox of pragmatism, profit, (small)pox and purity confronts FIFA. Alliances of tradition and modernity are possible but these are always partnerships of nervous tension and mutual suspicions. Things haven’t yet fallen apart at FIFA’s Zurich (Switzerland) headquarters but there is a siege mentality as it tries to harmonize the competing – and often, contradictory – interests of various segments of its global audiences. One emerging crisis is how far to accommodate football players’ on-field display of religious piety on the global stage [which FIFA’s customary audiences don’t mind] without alienating millions of viewers in new frontier markets of China/USA/secular youths [who are uncomfortable with open display of religiosity]. FIFA may avoid providing a clear statement on this vexing issue that won’t go away. But it must provide guidelines even if it is one of strategic ambiguity that muddles the water. Even an ostrich knows the futility of merely burying its head in the sand when cornered by a fierce predator.

CONTROVERSIES! FIFA is an expert at controversies. One way to view FIFA’s situation is to imagine a Used Car dealer with a questionable reputation and a team of good lawyers that keeps him out of jail. Injustice breeds controversies. For example, FIFA’s membership is comprised of 209 “national associations” [by that standard, FIFA is bigger than the U.N. which has 193 members]. In theory, FIFA Congress (Reps of national associations) is the supreme body. In practice, the real power rests with FIFA’s Executive Committee (FIFA President, General Secretary and selected officers). Since its founding (excepting for Joao Havelange of Brazil) all FIFA Presidents/Secretaries General have been Europeans!

Another source of controversy is the allocation of slots at World Cup Finals. FIFA has 6 “Confederations”:
AFC: Asia Football Association. Asia has 44 nations but gets only 4.5 slots at the world cup finals
CAF: Confederation of African Football. Africa has 54 nations but gets only 5 slots
CONCACAF: North/Central America/Caribbean has 23 nations but gets 3.5 slots
CONMEBOL: South American Football has 12 nations but gets 4.5 slots [Brazil, as host, gets 1]
OFC: Oceania Football Confederation has 14 nations but gets 0.5 slot
UEFA: Europe has 47 nations but gets 13 slots (Asian nations of Israel, Russia, Turkey, Cyprus and Kazakhstan play under UEFA qualification due to political reasons. Still it is manifestly unfair that at the world cup finals, Europe has 3 slots more than the 113 nations of Africa, Asia and Oceania combined!)

FIFA praises democratic traditions and suspends national associations at the slightest hint of domestic political interference, but it doesn’t practice democracy. International Football Association Board (IFAB) enforces FIFA rules. Six of its eight members are required to change any rules. FIFA nominates 4 of the 8 while the UK [England, Northern Island, Scotland and Wales] provides the other 4 “permanent” members. FOUR PERMANENT MEMBERS! The excuse is that these UK nations helped to develop IFAB in 1882. The Greeks also founded the Olympics in 8th Century BC but does anyone believe that Greece should have a permanent right to host the Olympiad “every other” 4 years?

FIFA is beset by allegations of bribery, vote-rigging, match-fixing and even vote-tampering. In his book, “Foul! The Secret World of FIFA: Bribes, Vote-Rigging and Ticket Scandals,”[2006] British investigative reporter, Andrew Jennings, meticulously documented evidence of massive Pay2Play, cash for contract corruption at FIFA. Mr. Jennings alleged, with proof, that FIFA’s marketing partner, International Sports Leisure (ISL), paid over 170 bribes worth more than $100 Million to top FIFA officials to secure contracts.
FIFA’S LIST OF ACCOMPLISHMENT deserves favorable mention too. It includes, but is not limited to:
1) Organizing the first truly global sport event in history and keeping it relatively free of politics
2) Helping low wealth nations in Europe/Africa/Asia/Caribbean to compete on the global stage
3) Reducing global tensions by crystallizing the Culture that Sports-is-above-Politics
4) Partnering with International Olympics Committee to build international standards for global sports
5) Developing Football Goodwill Ambassadors (a model for other international organizations)
6) Getting infrastructural development by asking for improved infrastructures to meet global standard
From Africa to Arabia, Argentina to Australia, Canada to Columbia, Europe to Eurasia and all the way to the Plains of Outer Mongolia, football has been true to FIFA’s motto, “For the Game. For the World.” It is the biggest individual global sport, and since the first World Cup was played in Uruguay in 1930, the event has been held without interruption every 4 years except in 1942 (during World War II, 1939-1945).

FORWARD TO THE PAST? Wherever collective human endeavor goes culture/politics/religion follows. In addition to those passions that civilization and decorum have restricted to bedrooms, sports gives us the greatest social licenses to publicly express animalistic passions. It offers occasions to live our lives but also to pretend that we can do better than society’s best. For example, sports can give a morbidly obese man in front of a TV the license to complain that an athlete in peak condition isn’t good enough and that he, the fat man, could do better. The essence of sports is participation. We partake through personal involvement or by supporting participants or adopting teams/mascots. The social objective of sports is to live vicariously so as to forget our individual differences and celebrate our common humanity.

So, what modern position should we assign ancient passions of culture/politics/religion at FIFA events? FIFA might be well-served to review opinions of U.S. Supreme Court on the vexing issue of “Separation of Church & State (nation)." In America’s first 200 years the role of religion in public space wasn’t a major issue as U.S. population was mainly Christian. But as racial, ethnic, cultural and religious diversity has grown the Supreme Court was obliged to provide guidelines. Loosely speaking, the Court’s common sense views on religion in the public space are: (1) religious objects may remain in public space if they have historical significance beyond mere religious purpose, (2) prayers, except in few exceptions, should be limited to private venues, (3) some religious displays are acceptable if there is no discriminatory intent [it’s OK to display a “Cross” if you also display Islamic “Crescent” or Jewish “Menorah,” etc.], (4) guidelines are not exclusive, so the Supreme Court may limit or expand rules based on circumstances.

FIFA needs to speak up otherwise FIFA will continue to behave like the duplicitous and cowardly polygamist who brings daily misery on his family by telling the older wife (in front of her ferocious sons) that marrying the second wife was a mistake he intends to correct, while simultaneously (and always in the privacy of the bedroom), promising the younger wife that tomorrow – and always tomorrow! – he would get rid of the older wife.

Patryk Utulu is a U.S.-based attorney and Strategic Communications Consultant
[All Rights Reserved. All materials subject to Copyright Privileges and Immunities