European soccer chief Lennart Johansson has never shied away from attacking FIFA boss Sepp Blatter, especially since being defeated in the race for the FIFA presidency two years ago.
The Asian Football Confederation, too, has little reason to be kind to Blatter. The FIFA boss alienated many when he backed Japan for the 2002 World Cup, most notably South Korean soccer chief and FIFA vice president Dr. Chung Mong Joon.
Blatter then incensed the Asians by granting them just two qualifying places - plus the host-country berths for Japan and South Korea - for the 2002 World Cup finals. The Asians responded by walking out of last year's FIFA congress in Los Angeles and threatened to boycott the World Cup.
So, it's no surprise that Asia and Johansson would want to publicly slap the face of their nemesis Blatter by conspiring to hand the 2006 World Cup to Germany, but it is illogical that they would do it by insulting the whole of Africa, most notably African soccer chief Issa Hayatou.
You have to think there's more in it for Chung's Asian allies (Saudi Arabia, Thailand and Qatar) to jump ship over the 2006 vote, and you would also think there would have to be more in it for Chung himself.
The Times gave us a hint. "For years, sport has been dominated by two things: politics and money," it said.
Its sister publication, The Sunday Times, noted, according to a Los Angeles Times report, that "in the two weeks before FIFA's vote, German multinational corporations invested more than $3 billion in three Asian countries whose ballots decided the result." One of these was German bid sponsor DaimlerChrysler's $450 million investment in Hyundai, a massive conglomerate controlled by the Chung family - yes, that Chung family.
Coincidence? It could be. Hyundai Motors are already big in soccer circles. Hyundai was the official car of Euro 2000 and will be the official car of the 2002 World Cup. The Hyundai management team (Chung, Chung, Chung and sons) does seem to be brilliant at placing its product at UEFA- and FIFA-sanctioned events.
But that's just a bunch of cars. You have to figure that there must be something that Johansson has to offer Asia in return for such a huge favor. Revenge doesn't measure up.
Perhaps an Asian head of FIFA would.
The next interesting date on Johansson's schedule comes in 2002 when he can mount an attack on the FIFA presidency. But the 70-year-old Swede has already said his time has passed and he won't be mounting a bid.
The hot favorite for the past couple of years has been the African chief Hayatou, a man much respected in soccer circles. But bearing in mind Johansson's previous remarks on his African brothers and the slap in the face they have received from Europe and Asia, it would be hard to imagine the one-time allies joining up to mount a serious challenge to Blatter.
But if Asia and UEFA are united behind a single candidate against Blatter, then the challenge could prevail. And who might be a likely candidate? Step up Dr. Chung.
With a European ally at the top, it would give UEFA the clout it wants in determining how the World Cup is awarded in the future. One thing is sure: the old system will be replaced, most probably by a rotation system.
But a rotation system between the five main confederations (Oceania would probably be lumped in with Asia) would be terribly disadvantageous to UEFA, who until now have staged the World Cup every eight years. Under a simple rotation system, UEFA would only get it every 20 years. That won't sit well with Johansson.
But if he can influence the new system, Europe could still get the lion's share of World Cups.
Under an optimum rotation system for Europe, it would get the World Cup every eight years - the same as now - and the other confederations would have their own eight-year rotation - in other words, they would only stage the World Cup every 32 years. This rotation would go something like this: Europe- Asia/Oceania-Europe-Africa-Europe-South America- Europe-CONCACAF-Europe. This could be modified so that South America and CONCACAF are also grouped together, meaning the rotation would run every 28 years.
An alternative grouping system would allow FIFA (or is that UEFA?) different options. One option would still allow Europe to host the tournament every eight years. This would go: Europe-Asia/Oceania/South America-Europe-Africa/CONCACAF-Europe.
An alternative 12-year rotation could run thus: Europe-Asia/Oceania/South America-Africa/CONCACAF-Europe.
Of course, these systems presuppose one thing: that Europe will get preferential treatment. This will probably happen.
Why?
Because, as The Times reported: "What mattered most in Zurich was which bid could generate the most money, through sponsorship, television, and attendances."
The Sunday Times went one step further when it stated: "When the sponsors and broadcasters set up camp in Germany in June 2006, they will be greeting (German bid chief) Franz (Beckenbauer) on first-name terms."
On June 27, I attended a huge party in Rotterdam hosted by ISL, the company that controls the marketing rights to the next two World Cups. Coincidentally, the special guests of the day were Johansson and Beckenbauer.
I met many people throughout the evening, most involved in marketing or sponsorship in some form, and they all had one message: South Africa will not get the World Cup.
When I asked why, they all told me: "Because the firms that sponsor the World Cup and support the World Cup do not see South Africa as being the most convenient place to hold the World Cup."
In other words, they think they can make stacks more money elsewhere, e.g., Europe, the United States, Japan, South Korea, etc.
With regard to the 2006 vote, Stern's sports editor Thomas Schumann noted:
"The major TV stations here (Germany) who are buying rights for the World Cup, paying some DM 3.4 billion ($1.75 billion) for example, are desperate for a German team to play in the 2006 competition. Never has Germany's team looked so inept, but by winning the right to host the competition, the side is guaranteed to take part."
While the guests at the ISL party felt sure that economic realities would direct the World Cup Germany's way, they also went out of their way to point out that no one in their right mind would want to go to South Africa, or Africa in general.
As one of them said to me: "Where would you rather go for your holidays - the murder capital of the world or Germany?"
It's a refrain that's been heard before, and it's the main reason why the IOC members are taking their holidays in Australia this year and not China. Beijing lost out to Sydney partly because of the adverse publicity surrounding the Tiananmen Square massacre.
But the combination of footballing politics and money politics completely undermines the notion of a fair vote.
As Oliver Holt put it in The Times: "It became embarrassingly obvious the whole bidding process had been an utter waste of time. . . .
"In the end, it came down to two days in Zurich when sad little men with pygmy agendas settled a few scores and forgot all about the best interests of football."
The men with money behind the World Cup know where to feather nests and build bridges. Dig deep into their business interests and there's no telling what you might find. In fact, only last week one soccer insider told me that one Executive Committee member has an auto dealership closely connected with another board member who has gained a lot through the votes of the Executive Committee.
Clearly, this kind of voting process has to change, and, as in the case with the International Olympic Committee, the solution is easy - if the will to change is there.
The answer is to have a blind vote. For the purpose of deciding who gets the World Cup, the Executive Committee could be doubled in size. The voting slips would then be issued in two colors and the committee members would take a slip at random.
After the voting process is complete, one color's voting slips are abandoned and only the votes on the other color would count.
This would go some way to ensuring a fair vote.
Of course, whether or not FIFA wants a fair voting system is another point. Fairness is not a word that's frequently heard in soccer's corridors of power.
The Times' Ian Hawkey concluded: "Germany, South Africa, Morocco, England and Brazil were all the victims of, and participants in the matrix of jealousies, revenges and tradeoffs which make up FIFA's executive process.