In 1956, Jules Rimet, 3rd FIFA president and the ‘father’ of the FIFA World Cup, was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.
In 1988, the president of the Swiss Football Association, Heinrich Röthlisberger, nominated João Havelange, FIFA’s 7th president, for the Nobel Peace Prize.
In 2001, the game of football (soccer) was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by Swedish lawmaker Lars Gustafsson, who suggested that FIFA could accept the honour on behalf of the sport.
The Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded on the annual basis since 1901, with some exceptions such as wartime. There have been quite some controversies about some of the awards, such as to Henry Kissinger in 1973 and recent awards to Barack Obama, the European Union and the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Needless to say, the above mentioned nominations related to football were a bone of contention as well. They all share a common assumption: football has the power to connect nations and peoples and promote peace. While the first two nominations attributed that power to the agency of FIFA presidents, the third one recognised the binding potential within football as such. FIFA as its world governing body was perceived as the most appropriate entity to take the prize. Since what Gustafsson called “the sport that helps international relations” (ABC News 2001) refers more or less to institutionalised practice rather than to (innocent) game, I want to answer the following question: should FIFA be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize? In order to discuss the question I will firstly look at some of the principles, examples and controversies surrounding the Nobel Peace Prize. Then I will analyse the role of FIFA in taking forward the ‘peace potential’ of football. My approach to FIFA will therefore be holistic; I will deliberately avoid discussing whether the award should be given to its president (I guess the answer to that is quite clear).
THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE
The Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to 126 Nobel Laureates since 1901 (NobelPrize.org 2013a). The candidates eligible for the Nobel Peace Prize are those persons or organisations nominated by individuals who fulfil certain criteria, listed here. The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded by a committee of five persons who are chosen by the Norwegian Storting (Parliament of Norway) for a mandate of six years, with possibility of re-election. According to Alfred Nobel’s Will, the prize should be given to those “who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind.” There are five Nobel prizes in the following fields: physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature and peace. The peace prize should be awarded to “person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses” (NobelPrize.org 2013b).
According to the original intentions of Alfred Nobel, there are three explicit reasons for awarding the Nobel Peace Prize, which not only reflect how Nobel perceived peace, but what meaning peace had in the broader society in the beginning of the 20th Century. As Bulloch (2008, 583) explains: “‘Fraternity between nations’ evokes an old-fashioned liberal institutionalism and endorses both the state and a system of norms by which to arbitrate disputes between states impartially. The ‘abolition or reduction of standing armies’ is nineteenth-century language for arms control measures, although Nobel must have considered the preponderance of British sea-power to be an essentially benign characteristic of a liberal world order; not a terribly surprising attitude for an enormously rich industrialist whose products were shipped all over the world. Lastly, ‘peace congresses’ in 1901 were not abstract academic conclaves at which the concept of peace was discussed, but instead were hard-edged bargains of interest calculation, the historical hinge points of European order, at which the great powers of Europe gathered together to divide and re-divide the spoils of their 400-year conspiracy of global domination.”
The negative definition of peace as the absence of war is not sufficient; however, there is no universally accepted ‘positive’ definition of peace. The reason for the non-existence of the definition might be the changing conceptions of the concept of peace, which are reflected also in awarding the Nobel Peace Prize, which “has always reflected something important about prevailing ideas concerning the concept of peace” (2008, 575). In the initial period after 1901, the Nobel Peace Prize inherited a set of broadly liberal ideas about peace between states. The prevailing conception of peace was therefore one of peace as order. Here are some of the examples of individuals and organisations awarded: The International Committee of the Red Cross, Thomas Woodrow Wilson, Frank Billings Kellogg, UNHCR etc. (NobelPrize.org 2013c). In the general mood of the 1960s, the prize gradually adopted a clearer disposition towards the idea of peace as justice. The changed focus was made complete when the award to Kissinger in 1973 caused a wide public dissatisfaction and political embarrassment. Since then, the committee has slowly widened out the criteria to incorporate all forms of social and restorative justice, and has navigated the end of the Cold War to reflect a broadly cosmopolitan sensibility. As a consequence, awards have been made that introduce environmental degradation and a condition of poverty as legitimate causes of violence, issues which present more mundane aspects of the search for peace and stability (Bulloch 2008). The examples range from Martin Luther King, Amnesty International, Doctors without Borders, the UN, IAEA, to Mother Teresa, Nelson Mandela, Muhammad Yunus and his Grameen Bank, Al Gore and IPCC etc. (NobelPrize.org 2013c). After the events of 9/11, the paradigm changed and the idea of peace as justice was partly replaced by the idea of peace as order. This doesn’t mean that ‘peace as justice’ is no longer important, but it has become to bear the assumption that security cooperation is a precondition for justice. “Therefore ‘peace as order’ can be subtly reimagined away from the absence of war between states, and towards ‘peace as human security’ (Bulloch 2008, 590).
It could be argued that some of the recent awards were awarded according to the perception of ‘peace as human security’: in 2008, to Martti Ahtisaari for his efforts to resolve international conflicts; in 2009, to Barack Obama, for his efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between people; in 2011, to Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Leymah Gbowee and Tawakkol Karman for their non-violent struggle for the safety of women’s rights to fully participate in peace-building work; in 2012, to the EU for over six decades contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe; and in 2013 to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) for its extensive efforts to eliminate chemical weapons (NobelPrize.org 2013c). However, Milharčič (2013) argues that some of the recent awards were based only on the potential of individuals and/or organisations to bring peace and not on actual contribution to peace or security. He calls this ‘the award for a good intention’. According to him, the prize is given to people and organisations that actually haven’t done what they were awarded for. I agree on that point with him. For example, the award given to Obama early on in his first term was based on the premise that he would pursue peace and end existing violent conflicts. His promises to close Guantanamo and withdraw the US troops from Afghanistan were soon forgotten. His failure to provide for a solution in the Middle East, especially in the conflict between Palestine and Israel, increasing number of drone attacks and consequently dead civilians kind of support the argument to revoke his prize (which is not possible). The EU was awarded the prize in the midst of cooperation in the intervention in Afghanistan, supporting the project of racial purity of the West Bank, huge protests in Greece because of the austerity measures imposed by the insensitive Troika, collapse of some of the European economies, and despite the failures in Srebrenica and inability to deal with the refuges in the Mediterranean (Milharčič 2013). It must be noted though that this is a very one-sided argumentation. The EU has put a lot of effort into conflict prevention in its neighbourhood and in other regions – successfully prevented conflict between Macedonia and Albania in 2001 is just one of the examples (although managed together with OSCE). Furthermore, promoting democratic ideals and human rights, binding different European nations together etc. are long-term processes whose results are not directly visible. We can’t know what would happen on the European continent if the EU wasn’t there, but it’s definitely a question worth asking. The point I want to make is the following: some of the recent Nobel Peace Prizes have been awarded to institutions and people that did indeed strive for peace, but their success was two-fold. Furthermore, the awards were given in the times when some other controversies were surrounding the work of the Laureates (such as Guantanamo in the example of Obama; economic crisis in the case of the EU etc.). It is in the light of these awarding principles as well as of the three above-mentioned perceptions of peace – as justice, human security, and friendly relations between nations – that I want to develop the arguments whether FIFA should or should not be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
FIFA AND THE QUEST FOR PEACE
FIFA is an international non-governmental organisation and world’s governing body of association football. When FIFA was established in 1904, it had only seven members, all of them European. Today, FIFA recognises 209 national associations, which makes its membership larger than the one of the United Nations. FIFA’s mission is: For the game. For the world. As the slogan explains, FIFA’s role doesn’t end with promoting football. One of the largest global organisations has set itself another goal: a better future for the world.
The world is a place rich in natural beauty and cultural diversity, but also one where many are still deprived of their basic rights. FIFA now has an even greater responsibility to reach out and touch the world, using football as a symbol of hope and integration.
We see it as our mission to contribute towards building a better future for the world by using the power and popularity of football. This mission gives meaning and direction to each and every activity that FIFA is involved in – football being an integrated part of our society. (FIFA 2012a)
You can watch the video about FIFA’s mission here.
How is this mission implemented? Or is it just a rhetoric, aimed at gaining better image of an organisation whose legitimacy is declining? There are three main channels which enable FIFA to pursue its goal of a better future and that the results of these could present a base on which to award FIFA the Nobel Peace Prize. These are: 1) organisation of the FIFA World Cup and other international matches and tournaments, 2) its status of international non-governmental organisation, 3) its Social Reponsibility (CSR) programmes. The arguments will be accompanied by some criticisms and controversies which question the eligibility of FIFA to win the Peace Prize.
1) Organisation of the World Cup and other international tournaments and matches
The FIFA World Cup is the global sports mega event where people of different nationalities, races and ethnicities come together. For one month in four years, the notion of the global village loses its abstract meaning and becomes very concrete (the same holds true for the Olympics). The spirit of the World Cups is normally a very positive one, and when people come together in such an atmosphere, it’s much more likely that they will develop friendly relations with other fans, accept their differences, understand and respect them. It could be argued, however, that the World Cup is a very exclusive event. Not a lot of people can afford to see the World Cup matches live which creates a temporary elite, taking part in the ‘happy global village’, and the periphery, which is excluded from sharing the spirit of global friendly relations. The prices of the tickets and other expenses as a result of the World Cup should definitely be reduced in my opinion. However, the World Cup is watched all over the world, so even if one is watching the World Cup behind the TV, one can get the idea of the whole world coming together. Although the basic principles of the World Cup are competition and commercialisation, the event sends a positive picture that the world can come together in peace and in the spirit of fair play. It therefore doesn’t come as a surprise that FIFA adopted a new principle of handshake for peace at the 2012 Congress. “With this new protocol, the referee and team captains will now not only shake hands before the match starts, but meet again at the same place on the pitch directly after the final whistle, closing the game with the ‘Handshake for Peace’” (FIFA 2012b). Interestingly, the commitment to handshake of peace was introduced in a partnership with the Nobel Peace Centre. Is this just the way for FIFA to get closer to the Nobel Peace Prize Committee? Kramer (2000) is very critical of such initiatives and Blatter as the president – according to him, Blatter has set his sights on the Nobel Peace Prize. He claims that Blatter takes advantage of every public opportunity to emphasise the beneficial effect of FIFA and that he does it in order to improve his image and not so much because he really cares about Africa and other places where FIFA is developing football. But despite all the buzzwords about future of humanity, the reality of the World Cups doesn’t end with nations coming together in a peaceful way. In order to build proper infrastructure, hundred thousands and even millions of people are displaced, without any rights guaranteed. Merchandising and licesing rights protect corporate sponsors instead of people – local population is unable to sell their products in the areas around the stadiums or another official venues so FIFA’s “greater responsibility to reach out and touch the world” doesn’t really extend further than to its corporate partners.
Another reason why the World Cup and international matches per se have a potential to bring nations together, has been explored in the previous blog post. International matches are attended by state’s representatives and therefore offer a positive and informal environment for sports diplomacy. Again, the potential is two two-fold: on one hand, international football matches enhance friendly relations, but on the other hand, they encourage nationalistic expressions and therefore enhance hatred and negative feelings towards the opponents. See the previous blog post for more.
The World Cup as a global event, comprising multinational corporations, media, tourism, financial and political sector, involves a lot of developmental programmes. They come both from FIFA (for example, 80 million $ founding from FIFA to the 2010 Fifa World Cup Legacy Trust intended only for developmental projects) and its partners – Coca Cola being in charge of the project for clean water, Hyundai/Kia taking care of educational programmes, Sony leading the project Dream Goal 2010 with the aim to alleviate extreme poverty and hunger, prevent spread of AIDS, malaria and other illnesses etc. (Neirotti et al 2010, 35‒57). There are also other benefits, such as investments into infrastructure and public services, increase of tourism, new jobs etc. However, these are mostly temporary, short-term benefits and inherent care for people is questionable. The main beneficiaries are sadly not people, but major corporations and powerful sectors. This is not to say that such programmes are completely without benefits – especially educational campaigns, clean water projects etc. can be of real help to the local population. Altough this fits into marketing and branding purposes of the funding companies, such concerns shouldn’t just diminish some practical impacts.
There is one strong argument why FIFA’ World Cups are contrary to the principle of peace, especially peace perceived as justice. The infrastructure for the World Cup is being built on the exploitation of the poor. One case is Qatar. Thousands of migrant workers will spend the next 9 years building the stadiums ahead of Qatar’s 2022 World Cup in terribly harsh conditions (no water, no safety, living in crowded rooms…), often doing 12 hours shifts in the heat with little regard for their general health and safety. The International Trade Union confederation predicts that if the current mortality rates are maintained, up to 4000 migrant workers may die before a ball is kicked in 2022. Another problem is the Kafala sponsorship system, which binds every single employee to a sponsor or employer, so that they are not allowed to leave that employer’s job or even the country without their permission. Thousands of migrant workers are therefore stuck in Qatar, with no legal protection at all. FIFA must have been aware of this system before awarding the World Cup to Qatar (Rodriguez 2013). Blatter’s comment to this was: “But I will also touch on this concern which concerns many people in the world and that is the working conditions in that country but we can’t be the ones who can change it. It is a responsibility not only for Qatar but the construction companies, and there are many European companies working there. We cannot turn a blind eye but we cannot make a direct intervention – but the Qatar government have confirmed they will do so.” (Burnton 2013). Brazilian workers are working in similar conditions – some officials are comparing them to the slavery-like ones. The recent protests have sent a clear message that the World Cup will only harm the people instead of benefiting them. While the Brazilian government is spending millions of dollars on the World Cup infrastructure, the quality and availability of the basic public and social services are falling. FIFA’s responses were similar in both cases: working conditions and public spending are in the hands of governments, FIFA cannot interfere in internal affairs. In the light of Blatter’s claims of FIFA’s worldwide responsibility and a strong duty to society, such comments come as a joke. While it’s true that FIFA can’t change national legislation, there is a principle of conditionality available. If FIFA can impose conditions for the quality of stadiums and other infrastructure, demand that countries change their legislation in order to host the World Cup (the Dutch parliament released FIFA’s demands or so called Government Guarantees which governments need to sign in order to host the event – you can see them on Andrew Jenning’s website, the link is here) why doesn’t it impose stricter demands regarding workers’ rights? If FIFA want to keep calling itself peaceful and accountable, it will firstly have to take much more active approach in tackling the negative externalities of the World Cups and actually focusing on people and their rights.
2) FIFA as an international non-governmental organisation (INGO)
International organisations have emerged in the system of complex interdependence. They have the capacity to connect people in relation to common causes beyond national boundaries. Therefore, they have the power to bring people together, whereby friendly relations are an inherent value. The status of international non-governmental organisation has helped FIFA promote peace in two ways: 1) having a power to bind nations, and 2) being independent and unaccountable to any government.
Firstly, internationalisation through the expansion of the FIFA family and the promotion of harmony among nations and power blocs has always been fundamental to FIFA (Sugden and Tomlinson 1998, 7). FIFA’s power started to rise after the collapse of the British Empire, when new independent states sought for membership in FIFA, which gave the organisation a worldwide membership. FIFA therefore became a forum for discussions between former colonies and colonisers. Sugden and Tomlinson (1998) see FIFA also as a platform for resistance. Football was used in the struggle for liberation in many African countries. “In the absence of economic and military might, newly independent African nations discovered in football a medium through which to register their presence in the international arena” (Sugden and Tomlinson 1998, 130). In the 1970s, FIFA was run by João Havelange, whose mission was to make FIFA a universal organisation. He increased the number of participants in the World Cup, provided materials to underdeveloped associations, helped underdeveloped states construct and improve football infrastructure and provide technical and medical teaching. His strive to turn FIFA into a world power, binding all nations, was acknowledged when he was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize 1988. His rhetoric of universality and peace was adopted by his secretary and the current FIFA’s president, Sepp Blatter. As Kramer (2010) notices, Blatter tries to present himself as the champion of the poor, as a “statesman on a mission of peace”. His big success was bringing the World Cup to Africa – however, he also brought the World Cup to Qatar, despite all the environmental and human rights concerns. Contribution of Havelange and Blatter to development of football in Africa is undeniable; however, it has to be noted that there are other (selfish) interests behind. One is definitely the presence of commercial sponsors and the market potential of emerging countries, and FIFA, itself an offshore financial centre, and being financially bound to its commercial partners such as Coca Cola, Adidas, Sony etc., is highly aware of this. The second reason is the principle of equal voting rights. A big number of newly independent states in the time of decolonisation therefore presented a new ‘market’ of potential votes for Havelange, and it was actually the votes of the Third World that helped him become the president. Africa’s status as the key electoral constituency in the struggles for the FIFA presidency in 1974, 1998 and 2002 is deeply explored in Darby’s (2003) article. He claims that those seeking the FIFA presidency have always sought to present themselves as the advocates of African football – Havelange’s election manifesto, Johansson’s efforts to establish an Afro-European concord, and Blatter’s GOAL project and support for a World Cup hosted in Africa are all a proof of this. Kramer (2010) therefore accuses Blatter of being an opportunist when it comes to the politics of sports. He is said to be merely “using his self-declared weakness for Africa — he has recently been calling it a “love story” – to curry favour among poorer member countries and thereby to secure votes from their football associations.” Regardless of the selfish interests it has to be admitted that FIFA as an international organisation did help bring nations together and it did made possible for newly independent countries to declare their international presence in a peaceful and sporty way.
Secondly, FIFA as a non-governmental organisation is not accountable to any government. It’s governed by the Swiss law (which offers FIFA as a registered non-profit organisation a tax exemption, how appropriate 🙂 ), but its member associations don’t represent their states of origin in political terms. While the states are bound by the international law not to intervene in internal affairs of the other states, FIFA is much freer in that sense. For example, Blatter paid a visit to the Iranian president in the beginning of November, and he made a straightforward appeal to the Iranian authorities to end the prohibition for women to attend men’s football matches that has been in force since the 1979 Islamic revolution. I am sure that much more fuss would be made if Obama suggested that – it would be considered as the interference of the US into domestic affairs of Iran. Another example is the role of FIFA in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. FIFA’s involvement as mediators has brought Israeli and Palestinian football officials closer together; under FIFA’s patronage, delegations from both countries agreed to each appoint a liaison officer to facilitate the movement of players in and out of Palestinian territories. Palestine Football Association is a full member of FIFA and Blatter has consistently defended their rights. FIFA can therefore significantly contribute to peace between Israel and Palestine – football, namely, is never completely separated from the politics. Here you can watch a promo video about their cause. In the case of Iran Blatter said: “I did not intervene to change the law but, as the president of FIFA and defender of football in Islamic countries, I had to present this plea to the political authorities” (Yahoo Sports 2013). However, a question remains: if FIFA sees itself as a defender of football, human rights and fairness, why doesn’t it speak up in Brazil and Qatar? It’s obvious that FIFA’s pleas for peace are motivated by different interests and that their activities for promoting peace, no matter how good and successful they are, are very inconsistent. As well, the fact that it’s unaccountable to any government (except partly to the Swiss one since it is established under the Swiss law) makes it exempt from international law as well. Switzerland is quite famous for money laundering, protected bank accounts, not dealing properly with corruption – there is no better safe haven for FIFA, is it? Peace, understood as human security and justice, requires accountability, responsibility and transparency as well.
3) FIFA and Corporate Social Responsibility
CSR has become an important trend in the entrepreneurial sector. Since the field of sport cannot be eliminated from the other social issues, sports organisations are increasingly embedding CSR in their mission – to bring positive consequences for the society as well as to improve their reputation. FIFA started to actively involve CSR into its strategy in 2005 when Federico Addiechi became the Head of the CSR department. FIFA’s radical change in SCR strategy transformed from a reactive approach to an extremely proactive approach (Neirotti et al 2010). In the year of 2010, 22 % of all the expenses were spent on developmental projects – a total of $ 794 million (FIFA 2010, 19). The strategy to achieve FIFA’s mission of building a better future by channelling the power of football is divided up into five core areas (FIFA 2013a):
–People: providing a safe and healthy working environment for all of their people
–Game: ensuring that the game of football reflects the highest values of society
–Events: organising international tournaments since they offer exceptional platforms to raise awareness, highlight particular issues and implement projects and campaigns on the ground
-Society: providing resources and engaging with its member associations, commercial affiliates, development agencies and others to provide children and young people with valuable resources and know-how
-Planet: addressing environmental issues (global warming, environmental conservation and sustainable management) seriously and mitigating negative environmental impacts linked to its activities.
Some of the key (constant) projects/areas of CSR are:
–Football for hope – initiative that uses power of football to achieve sustainable social development; programmes, conducted in partnership with some NGOs, which try to address social problems that young people face – these include HIV/AIDS, education, integration of disabled children, conflict management, peacebuilding etc (FIFA 2013b).
–FIFA against discrimination– abolishing all forms of discrimination in football by a) raising awareness, for example with FIFA’s Anti-Discrimination Days and the initiative Say No to Racism; b) punishing those who are behave contrary to the principle of non-discrimination (FIFA 2013c).
-Fair Play – evaluating and rating behaviour on and off the pitch, giving the FIFA Fair Play Award, organising FIFA Fair Play Days, overall promotion of the principle (FIFA 2013d).
–Taking care of the environment – zero emission building of FIFA headquarters, project Green Goal, implemented at the World Cups (curbing carbon emissions, promoting green technology etc.) (FIFA 2013e).
–Goal Programme – funding member associations to implement projects designed to develop football in their countries; the programme is essentially aimed at associations with the most pressing needs as an expression of solidarity (FIFA 2013f).
I strongly suggest reading an analysis of CSR activities in South Africa at the time of the World Cup.
The demonstration of programmes and their analysis shows that there was a wide spectrum of CSR activities. Similar projects are planned for the 2014 World Cup in Brazil, see the Sustainability Strategy here.
The majority of CSR activities aim at alleviation of poverty, environmental protection and children’s development and education. All of these are issues that can prevent future conflicts and build peace – not immediately, of course, but in a long-term. According to Bulloch’s (2008) analysis of different perceptions of peace, FIFA’s CSR activities therefore contribute to peace understood as justice. Although racism is still a persisting issue in world football, it has to be acknowledged that FIFA has tried a lot to wipe it out of football. New anti-racism resolution was adopted at the FIFA Congress in Mauritius this year, on the basis of which first or minor offences will result in either a warning, fine or order for a match to be played behind closed doors, while serious or repeat offences will be punished by a points deduction, expulsion or relegation (BBC 2013).
However, the CSR activities get criticised mainly for two reasons. Firstly, quite some projects at the World Cups bring only short-term benefits. In countries like South Africa and Brazil it’s not enough to be there for a month and then leave. FIFA is partly aware of this problem – Mr Addiechi confirmed that these programmes need to incorporate a legacy component that allows them to last beyond the World Cup (Neirotti 2010, 3). The 2010 Legacy Trust has recently published a report about the legacy of the World Cup 2010 in South Africa, which is showing promising results (FIFA 2013g). Of course, in order to get the big picture, reading just a FIFA’s report is not enough – talking to the locals in South Africa would probably give different answers. Sustainability should absolutely prevail over improving image of FIFA and its sponsors when planning the CSR activities. Secondly, FIFA’s main sponsors in CSR are multinational corporations such as Adidas, Coca Cola, McDonalds, Castrol, Budweiser, Sony, BP. While one controversy definitely stems from the fact that some of these MNCs come from sectors such as fast food, alcohol and oil industry, which probably won’t really contribute to development in underdeveloped regions, the bigger issue here is the self-promotion of these companies. “Many businesses only use their CSR initiatives to generate positive public relations material, rather than for legitimately altruistic and humanitarian reasons. In fact, when speaking with FIFA CSR Director Federico Addiechi on 16 June 2010, he admitted that FIFA committed this exact sin as recently as ten years ago, noting that the organization judged CSR success via “Return on Image”. However, Mr. Addiechi stated that FIFA has turned a corner in this regard, and is truly committed to improving the countries in which it holds events.” Really? How exactly are they improving life in favelas in Rio by displacing people? Commitment to protect workers in Qatar is obvious in their excuse that they are “not the United Nations”.
The question whether FIFA should be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize is definitely controversial. In the light of recent corruption and match-fixing scandals, prioritising profits over people, trying to distance themselves from human rights issues in hosting countries, the first and obvious answer would probably be no. Its autocratic regime of ruling doesn’t help either (I can’t believe Blatter is going to run for the president again). However, some of its activities and programmes are bringing positive change to the society – both on a global and a local level. Even if it’s just for improving the image, there are certain positive impacts. The very basis for such a power is the global popularity of football – it’s easier to connect people and send messages of peace and friendly relations through the most popular game on the world than by politics for example (see the previous blog post). So the nomination by Lars Gustafsson didn’t come out of blue.
The organisation which claims to have a global responsibility beyond the field of football should not remain silent and passive around the issues of workers’ exploitation and displacement of people as a consequence of new stadiums. The organisation whose principle is fair play, should not be involved in corruption and other scandals on such a massive scale (see BBC Panorama documentary, FIFA’s Dirty Secrets). The organisation which has the principle of environmental protection embedded in its CSR strategy, should not award the World Cup to Qatar. However, as the awarding of the Peace Prize in the last decade suggests, none of the recent Laureates is purely good and without any flaws. Surely, the EU doesn’t contribute to peace without some negative effects and without political scandals. So if one follows the logic of the recent awarding principles, FIFA kind of fulfils the criteria to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. While Obama and the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons received the award not so much for what they had done, but for what they were about to do (Milharčič 2013), FIFA has actually achieved a lot in its 109 years of existence. Its contribution to peace and friendly relations should not be completely overshadowed by corruption, controversial financial activities and other issues, although these deserve the most serious critique. Although FIFA, just like the EU or Obama, does have a potential to bring peace, its practices contradict the very principles of peace and justice. We should keep in mind that both the Nobel Peace Prize and FIFA’s developmental programmes and promotion of football as a means for better future stem from Western liberal values. And these (sadly) allow for quite some deviation when pursuing higher goals, don’t they? Machiavelli’s logic of the ends justifying the means is therefore still very alive, and apparently, both FIFA and the Nobel Peace Prize Committee are following it. Although I am a huge lover of football, I don’t think FIFA, especially in the current situation and with its current structure and functioning, should be awarded the Peace Prize. But I do think both FIFA and the principles of awarding the Nobel Peace Prize should seriously reform themselves. With a serious and complete reform FIFA would contribute much more to humanity than with its bragging about its contribution towards building a better future for the world.
BBC. 2013. FIFA racism measures could see teams expelled or relegated, 31 May. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22728162 (25 November 2013).
Bulloch, Douglas. 2008. For Whom Nobel Tolls? An Interpretive Account of the Migration of the Concept of Peace as Perceived through the Solemn Eyes of Norwegian Lawmakers. Millennium – Journal of International Studies 36 (3). 575‒95. Available at: http://mil.sagepub.com/content/36/3/575 (20 November 2013).
Burnton, Simon. 2013. Qatar 2022 World Cup: FIFA press conference: as it happened. The Guardian, 4 October. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/oct/04/qatar-2022-world-cup-fifa-press-conference-live (25 November 2013).
Darby, Paul. 2003. Africa, the FIFA Presidency, and the Governance of World Football: 1974, 1998 and 2002. Africa Today 50 (1): 3‒24. Available at: http://users.polisci.wisc.edu/schatzberg/ps616/Darby2003.pdf (25 November 2013).
FIFA. 2010. Financial Report 2010. Available at: http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/administration/01/39/20/45/web_fifa_fr2010_eng%5B1%5D.pdf (18 June 2013).
FIFA. 2012a. Mission & Statutes. Available at: http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/organisation/mission.html (24 November 2013).
FIFA. 2012b. ‘Handshake for peace’ between FIFA and Nobel Peace Centre, 25 May. Available at: http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/organisation/bodies/congress/news/newsid=1639712/index.html (24 November 2013).
FIFA.com. 2013a. About Social Responsibility. Available at: http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/socialresponsibility/about.html (18 June 2013).
FIFA.com. 2013b. Football for Hope. Available at: http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/ socialresponsibility/footballforhope/index.html (18 June 2013).
FIFA.com. 2013c. Anti-Racism. Available at: http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/ socialresponsibility/antiracism/index.html (18 June 2013).
FIFA.com. 2013d. Fair Play. Available at: http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/ socialresponsibility/fairplay/index.html (18 June 2013).
FIFA.com. 2013e. Environment. Available at: http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/ socialresponsibility/environmental.html (18 June 2013).
FIFA.com. 2013f. Goal Programme: Mission and Goals. Available at: http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/footballdevelopment/projects/goalprogramme/mission.html (26 November 2013).
FIFA.com. 2013g. 2010 Legacy Trust Showing Promising Results. Available at: http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/archive/southafrica2010/news/newsid=2222953/index.html (26 November 2013).
Kramer, Jörg. 2010. FIFA’s Ambitious President: Sepp Blatter – Champion of the Poor or Self-Promoter? Spiegel Online Internatioal, 15 June. Available at: http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/fifa-s-ambitious-president-sepp-blatter-champion-of-the-poor-or-self-promoter-a-700625.html (25 november 2013).
Maguire, Joseph. 2005. Power and Global Sport: Zones of Prestige, Emulaton and Resistance. New York: Routledge.
Milharčič, Ervin Hladnik. 2013. Nagrada za tlakovanje z dobrimi nameni. Dnevnik, 12 October. Available at: http://www.dnevnik.si/mnenja/komentarji/nagrada-za-tlakovanje-z-dobrimi-nameni (21 November 2013).
Neirotti, Lisa Delpy, Kristina Brzezinski, Kevin Clark, Brian Falasca, Harry Heisler, Lisa Jourdan, Alicia McClintock and Christopher Watts. 2010. 2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa – Corporate Social Responsibility Analysis. The George Washington University School of Business. Available at: http://olympicuniversity.ru/c/document_library /get_file?uuid=c6414e61-de4f-45ba-9bfa-f9a5ca6ae025&groupId=38595 (17 June 2013).
NobelPrize.org. 2013a. The Nobel Peace Prize. Available at: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/ (20 November 2013).
NobelPrize.org. 2013b. Alfred Nobel’s Will. Available at: http://www.nobelprize.org/alfred_nobel/will/ (20 November 2013).
NobelPrize.org. 2013c. All Nobel Peace Prizes. Available at: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/ (21 November 2013).
NobelPrize.org. 2013d. 14 Questions and Answers about the Nobel Peace Prize. Available at: http://www.nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/questions-geir-lundestad-2013.html (21 November 2013).
Rodriguez, Tom Perez. 2013. Exploitation & Enslavement: Has Football Lost its Humanity? Football Beyond Borders. Available at: http://fbeyondborders.tumblr.com/post/67867352868/exploitation-enslavement-has-football-lost-its (25 November 2013).
Sugden, John and Alan Tomlinson. 1998. FIFA and the Contest for World Football: Who Rules the Peoples’ Game? London: Polity Press.
Sugden, John and James Wallis (Ed.). 2007. Football for Peace? The Challenges of Using Sport for Co-Existence in Israel. Oxford: Meyyer & Meyer Sport.
Warshaw, Andrew. 2013. Palestine-Israel stand-off eases slightly as FIFA mediates next steps. Inside World Football, 24 September. Available at: http://www.insideworldfootball.com/fifa/13311-palestine-israel-stand-off-eases-slightly-as-fifa-mediates-next-steps (25 November 2013).