FIFA is of political interest because it vividly demonstrates what happens in supra-national organisations. These are invariably (1) undemocratic because they are convened by elites who make all the rules and decisions without democratic interference and (2) corrupt, the degree of corruption increasing with the width of the international spread. In FIFA’s case the international spread is as wide as can be, with 208 affiliated nations, marginally more than the UN which numbers 192. The corruption is consequently massive.
If a bidding process for a massive public project was taking place in Britain, there would be definite criteria laid down so that bidders would know what was required. If the bidding process was shown to be incorrectly or corruptly handled there would be recourse to the law for civil remedies and the possibility of criminal prosecutions. FIFA being answerable to no one in practice, there is no such recourse.
What applies to FIFA is applicable to the UN and the EU. Join any body which is not under national control and there is no national control which means democratic accountability does not exist.
There is another repellent aspect to the FIFA bidding process: the kow towing of politicians not only in grovelling personally when they meet with the FIFA executive members, but their willingness to allow FIFA to dictate what special tax, immigration and legal arrangements are put in place for the World Cup finals .
England should remain within FIFA and try to lead a revolt against the current executive including taking the lead in investigating corrupt practices within FIFA and producing a bidding process for future world cups which is based on objective criteria.
It is worth staying and fighting to change FIFA because there is both a chance of effecting change and there is no great risk in doing so. The same cannot be said of Britain’s membership of the EU which by the nature of its organisation and controlling personnel will continue to leach away what sovereignty is left to Britain. It is also a deeply corrupt body. The only cure is departure.
As for the UN, this is a body which the world would be better without as it is comprised overwhelmingly of authoritarian governments including many vicious despotisms. In its entire history it has never resolved a serious international situation, but has acted a s a justifying fig leaf for powerful nations to act militarily. Nor is it capable of tackling the corruption within it and the various bodies such as UNECEF and the IMF to which it is tied one way or another. It is also the prime engine of the liberal internationalists, who represent a threat to sovereignty of states such as Britain. However, it would not be in Britain’s interest to leave for one simple reason: we are one of the five permanent members who can veto any proposal. This allows Britain to protect itself against any future UN sanctioned action. It could also provide a lever to bring the whole edifice down if the veto was used in a way to block the will of powerful nations.