All that glitters...

The award of any major sporting event is a highly competitive business. The rewards can be high as evidenced recently by the apparent success of the London Olympic and Paralympic Games. Contrary to the populist myth, the London Games were awarded not for the presence of David Beckham but instead for a series of political cogs relentlessly turning behind the scenes. As I recall, the French were a little less than impressed to learn that the Games had been awarded to the old enemy. The financial rewards of such an event can be considerable not just in terms of the immediate influx of tourism but also in terms of the legacy to the culture and ethos of the country involved. It is therefore little wonder that financial inducements have become more the rule than the exception as the tears go by. If staging the Olympic Games is a major coup, staging the football World Cup is the coup de grace. As football continues its relentless quest to predominate the attention of sports fans the world over, it was not entirely surprising to see the 2022 World Cup awarded to a Gulf State such as Qatar. Such decisions are essentially little more than a sales transaction. When awarding the games, the highly secretive and insular FIFA members plumped for money and, if you'll forgive me, took their eye off the ball. What on earth were they thinking? The climate of Qatar is described as being a "sub-tropical dry, hot desert". The World Cup historically takes place in June or July. This might be a problem! Qatar at that time of the year boasts daily temperatures in the region of 40 degrees Celsius. I am constantly amused to read how much fitter the modern footballer is than his counterpart of yesteryear. Well, if there is any truth in this oft quoted claim, we may be about to find out. There is currently a furore about staging such a major tournament in such inhuman temperatures. The problem is money again. There is a suggestion to move the games to the more tolerable temperatures of December and January. Such a move could potentially impact on the Premier League. That would cost them their all important TV audience and hence a major source of its wealth generation. You can see the dilemma. Keep the schedule as it is and the uber-fit modern footballers will baulk at the prospect of having to play in such fierce heat. Had the good people at FIFA thought this one through properly in the first place, they wouldn't be in this unenviable position now. I do take issue though with these arguments over playing in high temperatures. The World Cup finals of both 1970 and 1986 were both played in similar temperatures. Both tournaments were played in Mexico and were won by Brazil and Argentina respectively. On both occasions, the beaten finalists were European; Italy in 1970 and West Germany in 1986. The argument that European teams can't cope with such temperatures is therefore a little flimsy. Granted, the temperature will provide a vital excuse for the England team when explaining yet another early exit (assuming of course they happen to qualify in the first place). This whole debacle has been created by good old greed. At the extreme of heat is cold. Trawling through the back catalogue of previous finals, I observe that the 1954 was contested in Bern, Switzerland. On that occasion, the final was played at the superbly named Wankdorf Stadium. Perhaps the Qatar tournament could come up with an equally memorable name to divert attention away from the obscene amounts of money which secured the deal in the first place. Any suggestions? Please forward them to FIFA in Zurich at your leisure...