The world's game is suffering an unprecedented crisis. FIFA, which governs soccer in 208 countries, is being engulfed in a corruption scandal that threatens its continued stability and success.
Sepp Blatter, president of FIFA, ran unopposed this week for re-election to another four-year term, his fourth. His only competitor, Mohamed Bin Hammam, withdrew after he was drawn into ongoing investigations of bribery allegations.
Bin Hammam was suspended following accusations that he paid $1 million in bribes to help secure the 2022 World Cup for his homeland, the tiny Persian Gulf kingdom of Qatar. Many have accused Qatar of using illicit means to "buy" its host-country status, after a number of other candidate countries, which were better prepared to coordinate and host a large international sporting event, were defeated in the early rounds of voting.
Separate allegations contend Bin Hamman attempted to buy votes in his challenge to Blatter for the FIFA presidency.
Bin Hammam denied any wrongdoing.
Compared with the civil war breaking out in Yemen, and the current uncertainty about whether Islamist extremists will be the ultimate beneficiaries of the Arab Spring, the question of Qatari bribery and foul play seems almost quaint. But those passionately idealistic supporters of multilateral decision making in global affairs, who so often place international organizations on a pedestal, should watch these developments very closely.
Unfortunately, the realities of day-to-day diplomacy, with its base motivations and petty rivalries, often bare little resemblance to the abstract beauty of academic theory or the morally superior "warm fuzzy feeling" that critics of unilateral action prefer.
"Presidents for life" are an uncomfortable feature of our world. Our standards of transparency and accountability in domestic politics often have no direct comparable in the international arena, where idealistic musings, divorced from real-life consequences and responsibilities, far too often serve merely to obscure a variety of sharp practices.
The value of international organizations should not be exaggerated. They have a purpose to serve, which is necessarily limited to only those areas where they can actually be effective.
A clear reminder of these limitations was the capture last week of Radko Mladic, the fugitive Bosnian Serb military leader accused of ordering the execution of thousands of Bosnian Muslim men and boys in 1995 at Srebrenica. Although Serbian prosecutors were to transfer Mladic to a United Nations tribunal at the Hague as soon as possible, no conviction can begin to address the strategic and organizational failures by the U.N. peacekeepers entrusted to protect the Muslim population of Srebrenica from precisely this bloodletting.
No doubt, the U.N. proceedings will be meticulously conducted, and observers and commentators will sing the praises of international law when the verdict is ultimately rendered. However, none of that will wash away the blood on the hands of the U.N.
Putting international organizations on a pedestal is unhelpful and counterproductive. We should not appear baffled when governance failures and institutional paralysis occur. The FIFA scandals clearly demonstrate the shortcomings that plague organizations that marry vague and lofty goals with little oversight and accountability.
Blatter, who has promised to hand out $1 billion in "development funds" upon his re-election, has frustrated many of his critics who sought to delay the FIFA election. English, Scottish and American officials have been highly vocal in their concern over these corruption allegations and their desire to see meaningful and effective governance brought to the sport. Ultimately, though, such criticisms too often have too little effect in the face of entrenched bureaucrats that are immune to effective oversight. As Blatter flippantly remarked to reporters, "What is a crisis? Football is not in crisis."
The International Olympic Committee faced similar bribery allegations 13 years ago in connection with Salt Lake City's selection to host the Winter Games. Ultimately, the scandal caused the IOC to engage in period of restructuring and reform.
However, FIFA's unworkable and opaque governance structure continues without reform. A game that so effectively draws together so many different countries, religions and ethnic groups is being directed by a leadership group that is undermining the sport's standing and influence.
The only voices to which FIFA might ultimately listen are those of the multibillion dollar conglomerates that sponsor the World Cup. Adidas, Coca-Cola and Emirates Airlines have all expressed concern about the snowballing scandal.
In the modern game, like in so much of modern life, money talks.
Die-hard fans of multilateralism, however, should find this sole potential check on FIFA impropriety cold comfort. But in the absence of real accountability, how else can these international leviathans be kept in line?
Despite their flaws and shortcomings, nation-states with democratically elected governments are still the best system available for organizing human affairs on a large scale. Romanticizing impractical alternatives accomplishes very little.