International football has gone to war sleeping

Incredibly prestigious. That is how Gianni Infantino, president of the world football association FIFA, called the Russian order of friendship which he received from President Vladimir Putin on May 23, 2019. “You have welcomed the world as a friend,” Infantino said after Putin pinned the medal to him — a reference to Russia’s hosting of the World Cup a year earlier. The friendly ties between Russia and the rest of the world would never be broken, he said.

How fragile that relationship was becomes apparent now that Putin has unleashed a war that is condemned and abhorred in many parts of the world. Football organizations have also spoken out against the invasion of Ukraine in recent days and took measures – some faster than others. Poland announced early on that it would not play the play-off match against Russia for the World Cup qualifiers on March 24. The football associations of the Czech Republic, Sweden, the Netherlands and England, among others, also came up with similar measures.

Things were different at the world football association FIFA. That determined Monday evening, just like the European football association UEFA, that all Russian club teams and national teams are suspended until further notice. The bloody invasion of Ukraine had previously been condemned by FIFA alone, and the federation had ruled that Russia should henceforth play its home games on neutral ground, without an audience and under the flag of the Russian Federation – not the country’s itself. This led to angry reactions in Poland and the Netherlands, among others. “This is insane,” tweeted Evgeniy Levchenko, president of the Dutch players’ union VVCS. “People are dying in Ukraine. And FIFA just lets the Russian regime use the sport for its own popularity. Shame on you, FIFA.”

The World Football Association’s initial reaction is reminiscent of the sanction that the International Olympic Committee (IOC) imposed on Russian athletes after the results of the doping results during the Sochi Olympic Games in 2014. There had been large-scale manipulation, the IOC ruled, but the athletes were allowed to continue to participate in international tournaments, albeit under a neutral flag.

on the plain

The board of the European football association UEFA announced at the end of last week that the final of the Champions League (May 28) will be moved from Saint Petersburg to Paris. The decision was widely praised, but the football association kept a low profile until Monday evening about the relationship with energy company Gazprom, which has been a sponsor of the Champions League since 2013 and largely owned by the Russian state. Then UEFA announced that it would immediately terminate the sponsorship contract worth around 35 million euros annually.

Ruud Koning, professor by special appointment of sports economics at the University of Groningen, is not surprised that UEFA did not cut ties with Gazprom immediately after the Russian invasion. “It is difficult to find a company in the short term that is willing to take over the sponsorship,” he says. “It is a huge amount. And UEFA has financial obligations to clubs that participate in the Champions League. Those clubs are not necessarily understanding if their compensation plummets a few million because Gazprom is shown the door.”

Koning was previously surprised that the German Schalke 04 did break smoothly with main sponsor Gazprom after the Russian invasion. “That’s a big step for a club like that. Principles are precious.”

Origin of money

Until now, football associations and clubs could afford not to take a position in social debate. That says something about the seriousness of the situation in Ukraine, but it is also indicative of the mores in international football. “Taking money, paying bills and then asking questions,” says British sports economist Simon Chadwick. “That was how it worked in international football for the past quarter of a century.”

There was hardly any mention of the origin of all that incoming money. In a sport where salaries and transfer fees are increasing every year, oligarchs and investment funds affiliated with dictatorial regimes could easily take ownership of clubs in England, France and Italy. Companies like Gazprom, a key vehicle for Putin’s energy policy, have been embraced as ‘partner’ of UEFA, Schalke 04 and Chelsea. Russia, and also Qatar, were awarded the World Cup by FIFA.

Russian money made its way into European football with the 2003 takeover of Chelsea by billionaire Putin’s confidant Roman Abramovich. How he made his fortune was unclear, but no one seemed to care. “We should have drawn a line at that point,” says British football historian David Goldblatt. Although it must be said, he thinks that things are not much better in other parts of British society. “British real estate agents, schools and political parties also welcomed the Russian rich with open arms.”

While Russia invaded Georgia (2008), annexed Crimea (2014) and was held responsible for the poisoning of the double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter in Salisbury (2018), Abramovich helped Chelsea to win the Champions League, Russian money flowed to Everton and Russia hosted the World Cup. When Infantino was asked in 2018 whether he felt comfortable with his close ties to Putin in that light, he replied: “Oh, there is so much injustice in the world.”

Many football associations and clubs have walked into war sleeping, says sports economist Chadwick. From a moral point of view, that is “extremely worrisome.”