Even Fifa cannot quite kill the World Cup’s spirit

All of the quality, the stardom, the magic, the legend that made my entry-level drug tournament, France 1998, so special would appear to have been replaced with an overblown, overwhelming, commercialised mess of corporate greed.

But I would be wrong. Not wrong about it being all-consuming, but becoming.

Nostalgia is dangerous and the nineties were not exempt from capitalism overpowering sport (Atlanta 1996, anyone?).

In fact, my first World Cup was the first that Nike launched one of its all-out, all-encompassing advert campaigns, which featured Brazil playing football in an airport.

The team’s star, Ronaldo, was perhaps a greater worldwide superstar than the game had ever seen, and the final was surrounded by (now debunked) rumours that Nike had forced the unwell No. 9 to play.

The World Cup had been expanded that year from 24 to 32 teams. England’s fall-guy David Beckham died twice, first crucified by the media and then his effigy was hung outside a pub.

Make no mistake, for Zidane’s brilliance, Bergkamp’s genius, and Owen’s wonder goal, France ‘98 also had as much pearl clutching as anything we have seen since.

Yet, there is always a sense, approaching any tournament, that the impending one will finally jump the shark, and provide conclusive proof that the game’s gone, that football has died and the men in suits have won.

And there has been good reason for the outrage: Workers who put Qatar 2022 together were forced to endure horrendous and inhumane suffering to construct massive stadiums in a country that might never use them again; and this followed Fifa awarding the previous edition to Russia, giving Vladimir Putin a chance to grandstand.

This time around, it is the corporate Trumpian greed that has made the headlines, as have images of the president laughing with his mate and Fifa boss Gianni Infantino in the Oval Office.

Although USA / Canada / Mexico 2026 has steered clear of slave labour by using already constructed stadiums it has found a way, once more, to degenerate to the point of familiar, Groundhog Day “calls for England to boycott” headlines. Central to the prosecution’s argument is:

• The tournament has expanded way beyond the genuine best in the world to 48 teams, providing a marathon slog of dreary, forgettable football between average teams,
• Fans have been massively priced out with tickets an eyewatering amount,
• And the heavy costs continued way beyond this, with transport also through the roof and stadiums no longer allowing water bottles to be brought inside.

If the trial is to decide whether this is an exercise in greed, then it’s a case closed guilty verdict.

There is even a feeling that Fifa execs are genuinely sitting in a boardroom thinking of how they can inflict further damage on the World Cup, the body’s only relevant product and its raison d'être.

What about a 2034 tournament in Saudi Arabia with 64 teams? What if future editions were held every single summer, with Qatar (or highest bidder) being given an automatic place in the final?

It could genuinely happen, and yet despite this, we will keep watching. And they will do so because it is not about Fifa, it is about the fans.

Fifa is not the body organising pub nights, parties, children’s tournaments, gatherings around the TV, and even (as was the case for South Korea / Japan 2002) screenings in school.

I watched the last final inside my church after the service finished.

The World Cup belongs to them, not men in a boardroom, and should be enjoyed despite it all.

While my nine-year-old self would be horrified at what the World Cup has become, my current self is intending to meet up with friends to enjoy the moment.

____________________

William Mata is a writer for LBC.

LBC Opinion provides a platform for diverse opinions on current affairs and matters of public interest.

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official LBC position.

To contact us email opinion@lbc.co.uk