CANBERRA –

Soccer as a globally organized sport finds itself in the gravest crisis of its history. Toward the end of May, nine senior FIFA (Federation Internationale de Football Association) officials and another five corporate executives were arrested in jaw-dropping and game-changing dawn raids in Zurich by Swiss police on charges of racketeering, money laundering and wire fraud drawn up by the U.S. Justice Department.

Simultaneously, Swiss authorities themselves launched separate inquiries into the awarding of the 2018 and 2022 World Cups to Russia and Qatar. Being charged with rampant, systemic and deep-rooted corruption by U.S. authorities is not something that can be lightly brushed aside.

Multinational sports federations are legitimate and influential nonstate actors in the web of global governance. Elements of uncivil society like people, arms and drug traffickers, international terrorists and money launderers comprise the undesirable nonstate actors. They have taken advantage of the spread and tools of globalization to control illicit activities on the unlit side of the global street.

Global governance is the sum of norms, institutions and compliance mechanisms that ensure stable, predictable and well regulated cross-border activities even in the absence of world government. What happens if legitimate actors engage in illicit conduct?

Sports can arouse popular passions, so much so that some disputes on the sporting field have led to incidents on the military battlefield. When well-managed, they can serve as vicarious substitutes for armed conflict. They have become globalized in a seamless process of horizontal and vertical integration. They have formed international structures to apply, interpret and pass new laws; to promulgate and monitor codes of conduct; to level the playing field by redistributing money from the revenue-raising wealthy to the indigent national associations; and more.

Some world sports are extremely rich (tennis, golf, cricket, the Olympics) and their management involves the handling of very large sums of money. The combination of hundreds of millions of people emotionally vested in sports and large sums of money has produced CEOs with delusions of grandeur who believe they are above such ordinary constraints as national laws. Some are notorious for demanding — and receiving — a status equivalent to visiting heads of state. The FIFA head's compensation package is reportedly in the $10 million range.

FIFA doesn't just operate globally but often lays down the law to mere mortal national associations. If governments are seen as interfering in the affairs of national soccer associations, FIFA can suspend their participation in international events. Its annual revenues are around $1.5 billion with another $1.5 billion in reserves. The association was established under Swiss law in Zurich. Its supreme body is the FIFA Congress that makes decisions on the "one member one vote" principle, regardless of size and revenue base.

One example of violating good governance norms is the extended tenure of presidents. Most international organizations limit the chief executive to two terms; Sepp Blatter had already served 17 years as FIFA president before he was re-elected, at age 79, to a fifth term. Despite that longevity at the helm, he offered himself as the man to clean up corruption! Either he was grossly incompetent and should have been relieved of the post, or he was complicit and the net might yet close in on him. Either way he had to go, and on June 2 he announced that he would resign.

Authorities have said the initial arrests are not the end but the start of their investigation and indictments. They intend to follow the money wherever it may lead.

With big money flowing freely across borders — often exempt from national taxation — temptations and opportunities for corruption mount. Corruption is the misuse or abuse of public power for private ends. This includes taking money or other material inducements in return for voting in a particular way. Countries bid fiercely against one another for the right to host these world championships held once every four or five years and invest huge amounts of money to impress the executives of the sport who will vote on the competitive bids. Not all national bodies are immune to giving and not all people are immune to taking bribes. Allegations have persisted that under-the-table payments influenced some votes and the eventual outcomes of hosting rights to South Africa, Russia and Qatar.

Another respect in which FIFA is symptomatic of broader global governance is in the shifting center of gravity from the Old to the New World. It was formed in 1904 with eight Western European countries. Today it has 209 national associations as members (compared to 193 U.N. member states). Each national association must also be a member of one of the six regional soccer confederations (Africa, Asia, Europe, North and Central America and the Caribbean, Oceania, and South America). In the latest election, Blatter was abandoned by the Europeans, America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand — and still won almost two-thirds majority in the first round (133-73). Africa, Asia and Latin America remained loyal to him in return for individual patronage and generous financial assistance from FIFA coffers for developing soccer in poorer parts of the world.

The final respect in which the incident conforms to global governance patterns is the extraterritorial reach of U.S. laws. The legislative basis is the 1977 Foreign Corrupt Practices Act banning bribery of foreign officials by U.S. companies and any company whose shares are traded on U.S. markets. Just one transaction through the U.S. financial system, one use of a U.S. phone or Internet provider, or even transiting through a U.S. airport during the time of the alleged wrongdoing, is enough to ensnare a company or individual in U.S. legal jurisdiction. There is no global law enforcement and judicial institution to ensure compliance with a body of international law covering corruption in international sports. Only the U.S. has the requisite combination of financial muscle, geopolitical clout and bureaucratic, legal and technical sophistication to pursue such transnational wrongdoers.

Where in most cases this rouses fierce nationalist opposition to U.S. "legal imperialism," in this instance for once it has generated spontaneous cries of "God Bless America" among soccer aficionados. Under the right circumstances, no other country can match the U.S. as a force for world good. This is an awesome demonstration of U.S. ability to project its punitive legal jurisdiction to any corner of the Earth to deny sanctuary to an alleged violator of U.S. laws. This still does not prevent the U.S. from practicing double standards typical of great powers in shielding its companies and executives from the reach of local law in foreign jurisdictions, for example the 1984 Union Carbide gas leak in Bhopal, India.

If the stench of corruption refuses to fade, the corporate sponsors and the broadcasters might abandon FIFA. Principles might not count for much, but the withdrawal of money will certainly talk — and force the hand of FIFA's governing Congress. Otherwise the associations and federations with integrity will have to exercise the exit option, boycott FIFA-organized events, and begin proceedings to establish a rival federation to run the sport globally. By re-electing Blatter, FIFA proved it was reform-proof. What credibility will a new president have if elected by the same body? Having brought the beautiful game into disrepute, the FIFA Congress must be reconstituted from scratch.

Ramesh Thakur is a professor in the Crawford School of Public Policy at the Australian National University and editor-in-chief of Global Governance.