Just over 10 years ago, former Fifa president Sepp Blatter stood on a stage in Zurich and talked about the importance of football. It is more than just a game, he said; it has an educational value based on its principles of discipline, respect and fair play. It gives hope to humanity.
Minutes later, Blatter announced that the hosts for the 2018 and 2022 men’s World Cup finals would be Russia and Qatar, respectively.
The announcement was met with a bewildered silence, stemming from the fact that Fifa’s own technical evaluation reports concluded both Russia and Qatar were the least suitable hosts compared with other bidding nations. They were the only two bids to be given “medium” and “high” risk ratings.
In the decade since, 11 of the 22 voting members have been fined, suspended, banned or prosecuted for their role in these decisions. Both tournaments have been overshadowed by the human rights abuses that have constructed them and the scandalous politicking that awarded them. The trust of the global football community in its international governing body is in tatters.
Fifa now finds itself on its knees, hands clasped, seeking atonement. Their first act was in 2018 when they awarded the 2026 World Cup to the “United” bid, which exceeded its rival (Morocco) in almost every way according to Fifa’s own report.
The governing body now has its second major opportunity following this week’s release of the evaluation report for the 2023 Women’s World Cup. It concluded that Australia and New Zealand’s joint-bid was the strongest of the three, scoring 4.1 out of a possible 5, while Japan – its nearest competitor – scored 3.9 and Colombia 2.8.
For Jane Fernandez, the general manager of the “As One” bid who has worked on its development since 2017, Fifa’s comments are the strongest indication yet that Australia and New Zealand’s bid is in pole position.
“Based on the ratings that came out in the evaluation report, that’s exactly how it appears,” Fernandez told Guardian Australia. “The purpose of the report is to inform the Fifa Council. If you look at the 2026 process, the ‘United’ bid scored the highest. Whilst it’s a bit of a different voting process in that the whole of Congress voted for the men’s World Cup bid, that was the way the vote went – in line with that [report].
“I was really buoyed by the fact that the overall risk rating is low, and we’re the only bidder that achieved that. So that filled me with confidence that we’ve done all we could do.
“Our job for now is to ensure that we’re pushing forward the strengths of our bid and ensuring the Fifa Council are aware that we’ve presented the most favourable bidding proposal, that we stand ready to deliver with the complete support of all governments, and we’ve proposed the most favourable commercial opportunity to Fifa.”
The evaluation reports are broken into two sections: infrastructure (70%) and commercial (30%). Within these sections are weighted categories such as stadiums, team and referee facilities, accommodation, transport, ticketing revenue, security, scheduling, environmental impact, human rights and technological capacity. Following on from the 2014 World Cup in Brazil in which a number of “white elephant” stadiums were built and subsequently abandoned, sustainability and legacy has also become part of Fifa’s assessments.
“The reports are really important because the [people] that conducted the analysis are also the team that developed the objectives of what they want the Fifa Women’s World Cup to deliver,” Fernandez said. “There’s a full matrix that Fifa has developed and that’s what they’re assessing against. It’s not just someone sitting down, reading the bids and making their own judgement; it’s very specific to the needs of the tournament.”
But scepticism, naturally, remains, so far gone is Fifa’s reputation. However, Fernandez is more confident that the report recommendations will be followed after Fifa changed its voting rules in the wake of the 2010 controversy. “At that point in time, the vote wasn’t public,” she said. “Who you voted for wasn’t out there. But for the 2026 [tournament], the vote was public, and it’s the same for this process. It’s completely transparent: the bid book is available, the technical evaluation report is available, and whoever you vote for is going to be public.”
Combined with Australia and New Zealand’s impressive response to Covid-19 – which included Football Federation Australia coming to the aid of the International Olympic Committee by moving the Matildas’ Olympic qualifiers to Sydney in February – the As One bid appears to be the front-runner in Fifa’s own eyes. Now its Council members must decide whether it wants the eyes of the rest of the world turned on them once again.