FIFA thrashed in a game of appearances over Ukraine

A tortuous trip

As Russian tanks rolled over the Ukrainian border last Thursday, FIFA’s governing council met. It found time to suspend Kenya and Zimbabwe for government interference in their football associations. Yet on the matter of Russia’s government interfering in Ukraine in the most extreme way imaginable, there was nothing to report because no action had been taken. President Gianni Infantino offered only hollow platitudes, expressing hope for a “rapid cessation of hostilities” and solidarity with “the people affected by this conflict,” carefully avoiding any specific mention of Ukraine or justice.

It was a mealy-mouthed response from an organisation whose own mission statement obliges it to respect human rights and uphold the “inherent dignity and equal rights of everyone.” The invasion of a sovereign nation was a clear violation of these principles. The least FIFA could do was suspend Russia from world football, but even this simple step became a tortuous trip, only taken after immense external pressure.

Two days later, the organisation announced what it termed “action.” Following a recommendation from the International Olympic Committee, it declared that Russia would have to play home matches on neutral territory without spectators. The team would compete under the name “Football Union of Russia,” and its flag and anthem would be banned. This followed the precedent of the recent Winter Olympics, where Russian athletes competed as the “Russian Olympic Committee,” a sanction which clearly had no deterrent effect on Vladimir Putin.

The move was pure semantics.

Not interested in appearances

The response from European football was immediate and unified. Poland, who are scheduled to play Russia in a World Cup play-off semi-final on 24th March, were unequivocal. Their FA president, Cezary Kuleska, called FIFA’s decision “unacceptable to us,” adding: “we are not interested in the game of appearances.” A formal letter to FIFA argued that if its human rights policy was “more than just words on a paper,” Russia must be expelled.

The Czech Republic and Sweden, potential opponents in the play-off final on 29th March, shared this view. The Czech FA stated it was “not possible” to play Russia, even at a neutral venue. Swedish FA chairman Karl Erik-Nilssen was even more blunt, saying Sweden would not play Russia “regardless of what Fifa do,” because the “illegal and deeply unjust invasion” made “all football exchanges with Russia impossible.”

FIFA claimed it was engaged in dialogue to find “appropriate and acceptable solutions,” as if these associations had not already made the only acceptable solution perfectly clear. Even the organisers of the Eurovision Song Contest acted with more integrity, banning Russia a day after initially welcoming them to what it called a “non-political cultural event.” The speed of that reversal only highlighted FIFA’s dither and delay.

An unforgivable failure

This failure of leadership is unforgivable, but not surprising. After 17 years under Sepp Blatter, FIFA is well-acquainted with autocrats. Blatter famously boasted that FIFA had more members than the United Nations, yet Infantino’s administration showed a shocking slowness in recognising Ukraine’s sovereign integrity. The decision to finally suspend Russia was as right when it was eventually made as it was when first demanded four days earlier. It was a no-brainer, especially for an organisation with the financial reserves to absorb any immediate commercial consequences.

The impressive unity shown by national associations across Europe demonstrates that football does have political power when it is organised as part of a wider campaign. But FIFA failed to organise it. The pattern is depressingly familiar, stretching back through the presidencies of Blatter, Joao Havelange and Sir Stanley Rous. For FIFA, it seems, doing the right thing remains the least important factor of all.