Fifa set to endure winter of discontent after task force opts for December World Cup

There have been a few unexpected twists and turns in the whole saga of Qatar's bid to stage the 2022 World Cup but, to be fair, the announcement that Fifa's task force now favours holding the tournament in November/December because of the weather is not really one of them.

Just as in 2010, when people knew other bids made much more sense but there was a widespread acknowledgement Qatar was throwing so much money at the process that Fifa's collective head was going to be turned, it was clear which way the wind was blowing in Zurich and this announcement is only a public acknowledgement of that.

In any case, so shocking has been the handling of this whole sorry affair that the game’s governing body has pretty much lost the capacity to surprise in relation to what will be the 22nd staging of its showpiece event.

After the allegations of corruption that followed the selection and the incredible way in which they have been dealt with by the federation, anything other than this would have been more of a shock, especially as Fifa's general secretary, Jerome Valcke, had suggested late last year that November/December was a major possibility.

Personal assurances

Valcke, in fact, listed January/February or November/December as possibilities but his boss, Sepp Blatter, gave personal assurances to Winter Olympic chiefs that Fifa would not create any difficulties for them and so the latter period was clearly the leadership's preferred timeframe going into this latest meeting in Doha.

Fifa has clearly done much to prepare the ground. It said yesterday that all six regional confederations are behind the proposal. So it is all but certain to be ratified next month by the organisation’s executive committee members, many of whom are essentially bound to maintain their support for Qatar having defied both logic and the terms of the bid process in order to select it five years ago ahead of Australia, Japan, South Korea and the United States.

Uefa’s support is presumably rooted in that of its president Michel Platini, who has consistently said he always knew it would have to be moved from June due to the heat while seeming consistently untroubled by the fact this was never supposed to be an option.

Air of resignation

What opposition there might now be will be provided by clubs and leagues, especially those in Europe, who provide the bulk of the players. However, there was an air of resignation in the reactions of English Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore and European Clubs' Association chairman Karl-Heinz Rummenigge to the report with the former saying he felt "let down" and the latter making it clear the only real issue now is money.

“Today’s recommendation of the task force regarding the Fifa World Cup 2022 in Qatar does not come as a surprise,” said the former Germany international Rummenigge, who is also the chairman of Bayern Munich, before adding, “the European clubs and leagues cannot be expected to bear the costs for such rescheduling. We expect the clubs to be compensated for the damage that a final decision would cause.”

The scale of that compensation now has to be decided with the $70 million (€61.76 million) set aside by Fifa to compensate clubs for the use of their players in Brazil bound to be dwarfed.

Bayern got more of that money than any other club (€1.44 million) while four Premier League outfits cleared more than a million apiece but that is likely to be considered small change by the various members of Europe's elite given the amount of inconvenience to be incurred on this occasion.

Shortened

It is reported the tournament will be shortened and scheduled to finish on December 23rd, presumably to run into the Christmas breaks that occur in countries like France, Spain and Germany.

Fifa vice-president Jim Boyce says he thinks that is a little too late but the Premier League, which provided 105 players to last year’s event, some 14 per cent of the total involved, has, predictably given its attachment to the traditional “Boxing Day” and New Year’s programmes, reacted rather more strongly.

For the Premier League €60 million is not much more than broadcast, ticket and marketing revenues combined will bring in on a good Sunday afternoon once the next TV deal is in place. Even if, as expected, three or four days are shorn off the 31 required to complete last summer’s event, the preparations of national teams combined with the recovery required by players who make the latter stages will mean some of the very best players being unavailable for around 50 days.

Fifa has thus far dealt with the issue just as an organisation with an awful lot of money but no outside accountability might be expected to. After the broadcast rights holders for North and much of Latin America complained that a shift to winter would affect the value of the rights due to potential clashes with local events – the NFL in the case of the United States – their current contracts were simply extended to include 2026 without any tendering process. The Fifa director of television said there had been a consultation process and that it had “gone well”.

Judged in those terms, much of what follows with its various stakeholders might yet prove to be a triumph, a gloriously expensive one for Fifa in which cash trumps common sense; rather like the staging of the tournament itself.

Qatar Winter World Cup: Background and impact of decision

How did we end up in this mess?
Qatar bid for the 2022 World Cup despite temperatures of almost 50 degrees when it is usually played, in early summer. Fifa's medical people said conditions would be impossible for players and there seemed ample other reasons to go elsewhere but the organisers said they would air condition entire stadiums and spent an awful lot of money on a successful campaign of persuasion.

What has happened now?
Having acknowledged the original bid as voted on is impractical because of the heat and doubts about the conditioning plan, Fifa set up a "task force" charged with recommending a new time slot. They've proposed late November to late December – the 23rd, it has been reported – and the federation's executive committee is virtually certain to endorse this schedule when it meets over March 19th and 20th.

Surely that's common sense? Well, yes, although the clubs who employ most of the players who will participate reckoned an April tournament would work as the temperatures would be manageable and cause far less disruption to their leagues and other competitions. It also makes something of a mockery of the original bidding process.

What leagues will be affected?
All of the very biggest European ones with seven of the 10 worldwide ones who provided most players to Brazil last summer set to be severely affected. A previous report for Fifa, however, acknowledged about 50 leagues would be forced into rescheduling, some of them over a three-year period so as to make the impact in 2022 itself more manageable.

Anyone else going to suffer?
Broadcasters in the US have already been up in arms over a potential clash with the NFL with their protests ending in an extended rights deal that has widely been interpreted as a buy-off. It's not clear yet how audiences might be affected by a switch from the lazy days of summer to the run up to Christmas and attitudes may harden among rights holders and the sponsors if numbers are expected to dip. Then there are the travelling fans, especially those who want to stay for the final but get home for Christmas.

And what about the quality of the tournament?
It should be okay although the clubs will be pushing to limit the time and number of friendly games that associations are allowed for preparations. England took 20 days and three games last summer. That may be cut but some acclimatisation will be required as, while it's cooler in Qatar in December, it's downright cold at that time of year in large chunks of Europe and players will need to adapt to a 15 or so degree jump in temperature.