Friday Newsletter: Should FIFA Ban Russia From This Year's World Cup? Of Course. But Don't Start Counting on FIFA To Do the Right Thing
There are obviously a lot more important things going on in the world right now than sports. Russia instigated a full-scale invasion of Ukraine this week, and the amount of devastation and bloodshed could be immense. Our thoughts, like those of anyone with even the hint of a moral compass, lie with the people of Ukraine and against anyone who would support Russian president Vladimir Putin.
Fútbol with Grant Wahl is a reader-supported soccer newsletter. You can sign up (free or paid) to get my posts in your inbox. Quality journalism requires resources. The best way to support my work is by taking out a paid subscription now.
Russia should be viewed as a global pariah, and that’s where we do come to a sports connection. The Russians are set to take part in a qualifying playoff for World Cup 2022 on March 24 against Poland, with the winner to play the victor of Sweden-Czech Republic for a spot in Qatar in November. On Thursday, the soccer federations of Poland, Sweden and the Czech Republic sent a letter to FIFA demanding that none of the playoff games take place in Russia (which was set to host the March 24 game and, if it wins, the decider on March 29).
The request makes total sense from a safety perspective. But I’m surprised that the letter didn’t include the demand that Russia be thrown out entirely from the World Cup tournament. (UPDATE: On Saturday, the Polish federation and players said they would refuse to play Russia in March.)
There are precedents for that. In May 1992, FIFA and UEFA suspended Yugoslavia the day after the United Nations Security Council (including Russia, by the way) voted to adopt a resolution sanctioning Yugoslavia for its role in the wars that broke up the country. Yugoslavia was kicked out of Euro 1992 (for which it had qualified) and the qualifying tournament for World Cup 1994.
But FIFA doesn’t need a resolution from the U.N. Security Council to ban Russia from this year’s World Cup. (Not that it would get one, since Russia has a veto on the Security Council.) FIFA’s members suspended Apartheid-era South Africa from 1961-63 and 1964-76 and formally expelled the nation in 1976 after the Soweto uprising. In 1991, the FIFA membership recognized a new, multiracial South African soccer federation.
Apartheid-era South Africa and early-1990s Yugoslavia were pariah states, just like today’s Russia. And while Russia’s invasion of Ukraine alone should be enough reason to ban Russia from the World Cup, we have also seen plenty of evidence over the years that Russia has conducted extensive state-sponsored doping in a wide range of sports. When someone shows you who they are, believe them.
Yet the people who run FIFA and the International Olympic Committee have been soft on Russia for years now, even in the face of Russia’s 2008 war with Georgia, its 2014 annexation of Crimea and its support of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad’s war on his own people. FIFA president Gianni Infantino was at his head-in-the-sand worst during World Cup 2018 in Russia, when he declared that a soccer tournament had changed everyone’s views of Russia and its leadership.
No, it hadn’t.
When Rob Harris of the Associated Press asked Infantino on Thursday if he had any regrets over what he said about Putin, Infantino’s answer was an embarrassing non-answer.
Our expectations of FIFA are laughably low, of course. And while I think there’s a remote chance that the organization could vote to ban Russia from this year’s World Cup, I’m not naive enough to believe it’s likely. FIFA issued a statement on Thursday expressing dismay at Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. But if you think Infantino’s FIFA is suddenly going to turn tough on Russia after not doing so for years, you haven’t been watching how FIFA works.
OPENING THE MAILBAG
Let's talk about Gazprom. They are a global sponsor of UEFA's continental competitions, as well as the kit sponsors for several prominent clubs (Red Star Belgrade, Schalke, Zenit St. Petersburg) and the actual owner of Zenit. Gazprom is also majority-owned by the Russian state. My question is, how does Gazprom's deep financial entanglement into UEFA's sponsorships and ownership groups complicate UEFA's ability to respond to the conflict in Ukraine? How much does this financial relationship influence footballing matters? And how do Ukraine and Russia even continue with World Cup qualifying if there is an active hot war underway between them, making it difficult or impossible for nationals of both countries to cross borders?
Ehren Schwiebert
Here’s what we know as of now: UEFA has moved the men’s Champions League final away from Gazprom Arena in St. Petersburg to the Stade de France in Paris; Schalke has removed Gazprom from its jerseys; and reports say UEFA is looking to end its relationship with Gazprom, which could be worth up to $60 million a year these days. As for World Cup qualifying, it remains to be seen whether Ukraine will take part in the UEFA World Cup qualifying playoffs next month; it’s set to play on March 24 at Scotland.
Any chance that with the abrupt removal of the Champions League final from St. Petersburg, this would be the optimal moment to have this game played in NYC or Los Angeles in May?
Jofi J Joseph
I’m sure your question came in before the official announcement of Paris getting the final. But I’ll say here that I think the Super Bowl will be played outside the United States before the UEFA Champions League final would ever be played outside of Europe. Whenever the topic has come up on social media, Europeans have had a visceral negative reaction that I haven’t seen nearly as much from Americans about potential Super Bowl taking place overseas.
Loved your recent discussion about TV soccer announcers. I'd love a deeper dive on this topic. For one, I was left wondering what specifically makes for good announcing and commentary in your opinion? Or put another way, what is an announcer's core function? Also, the topic of nationality/accent bias is fascinating. I've even heard non-Spanish speakers change channels to the Spanish feed in order to avoid "unlistenable" American commentators. What's really going on there? What exactly is their... GOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLL?!
Edward
Lots of good questions here. When I think about TV announcers, I divide it up into play-by-play people and game analysts. For play-by-play folks, they need to 1) pronounce the names right and put in the time as professionals to do that, 2) not talk too much, and 3) have a real chemistry with their analyst. For analysts, they need to 1) tell me something I don’t know and provide insight about what we’re seeing, and 2) not be provincial, i.e., talking about only the context of England when they’re broadcasting a Champions League game.
Can the USMNT finally win at Estadio Azteca? The time is now, but the Weston McKennie injury puts a damper on things. Costa Rica (2001) and Honduras (2013) were able to do so. Do not come out and settle for a draw. This might be the best chance to finally win there.
Juan
I was in the Azteca when the U.S. finally won a friendly there in 2013, but it is true that the U.S. has never won a World Cup qualifier there. Look, Mexico is down, and even though McKennie is out, I’d predict a tie at this point for the upcoming game. That and a win at home against Panama would put the U.S. in the World Cup no matter what happens in other games. One big question is whether Gregg Berhalter will use his best lineup in Mexico knowing how big the Panama game is three days later. But my sense is that Berhalter will send out a lineup in Mexico to win the game. It’s not out of the realm of possibility, and it would continue the U.S.’s dominance over Mexico the last two years.
Have a great weekend, everyone!
I would never count on FIFA doing the right thing. But if Russia is in the WC, fans should refuse to go and opposing teams should refuse to play. If FIFA wants to award Russia the World Cup, because no one would play them….and all their matches are defaulted to them…..it will make FIFA look just as they should. Like a clueless, immoral, corrupt organization. What a surprise.