Exclusive
Fifa rated Russia’s bid worst for safety
SECRET Fifa documents show that Russia’s successful World Cup bid was rated worst for “threat and risk” out of the nations vying to host the tournament, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.
Shortly before the decision in 2010 to award Russia football’s biggest event, a security assessment by a South African police chief, Andre Prius, found that the country’s 2018 bid had a “moderate to high” risk of terrorism and other major incidents – a poorer classification than all its competitors.
In contrast, England’s bid – which gained just one vote – was seen to be the safest of the nations hoping to be given the 2018 tournament.
A summary of the findings was given to the Fifa officials who later awarded Russia the World Cup.
The disclosure is likely to fuel concerns about security for English fans attending the World Cup this summer and call into question the wisdom of awarding the eastern European country the hosting rights.
The World Cup begins today against a backdrop of strained relations between Vladimir Putin and world leaders, including Theresa May. Last week, MPS on the Foreign Affairs Select Committee warned that England football fans faced an increased risk of violence during the World Cup because of deteriorating diplomatic relations.
More than 30,000 tickets have been bought by England supporters, who are preparing to travel to Russia for England’s first match against Tunisia next week.
Last night, the chief executive of England 2018, Andy Anson, said that the documents seen by The Telegraph were “further disturbing evidence that Fifa completely ignored the technical bidding process in every aspect”.
“We clearly had the best technical bid, without a doubt, of the European bidders,” said Mr Anson. “It’s very frustrating, but not surprising.”
Ever since the December 2010 decision to hand Russia and Qatar the next two World Cups, the bidding process has been plagued with allegations of corruption and vote-buying, though little evidence has emerged of improper behaviour by Russia.
Mr Prius was asked by Fifa to carry out the assessment less than a month before the vote in December 2010.
Documents seen by The Telegraph show that before the decision to award the tournament to Russia, its bid was given a rating of “moderate to high” for “threat and risk”, whereas the other countries seeking to host either World Cup were given either a “low” or “moderate” classification.
Issues raised by the police officer include a “Moscow-centric situation re air transport … [which] does not provide an ideal situation from a security point of view”. He said there was a “lack of space in the areas surrounding [the] stadium … [which] … may hamper security operations”.
The documents show that in Mr Prius’s assessments of Qatar, its rating for the “impact of a major incident” changed from “moderate” to “high” in different versions. It is unclear why this change was made. This “high” rating was worse than that of other bidding nations.
Separate documents seen by The Telegraph show that the chief investigator at Fifa, Chris Eaton, gave “star” ratings to dozens of Fifa officials to describe whether they had been “compromised” or if they were subject to questions about their behaviour. In a document later given to the FBI, which was investigating the vote in 2010, Mr Eaton gave Fifa council member Hany Abo Rida, of Egypt, two stars, which he said meant “untrustworthy”.
“[He has] close relationships and associations of concern,” he wrote, adding that there was “indirect evidence of inappropriate behaviour”.
Mr Abo Rida is the only member of the executive committee which voted in 2010 who also sits on the current Fifa council. Several others have been jailed or face criminal prosecution.
David Chung, who until April was one of Fifa’s vice-presidents, is described by Mr Eaton as “a definitely compromised person” about whom there is “evidence of inappropriate behaviour”. Mr Chung, who was not part of the 2010 vote, was awarded one star in the document.
Mr Chung stepped down from Fifa citing “personal reasons”, but amid ac- cusations of corruption over a multimillion-dollar project to build a new headquarters for the Oceania Football Confederation. A spokesman for the Russian bid said that the Russian Federation and all of its authorities “consider safety and security as a top priority” and the country had successfully hosted many major events.
They added that the security report prepared in 2010 was a “snapshot” and they did not agree with its findings.
A Fifa spokesman said that the organisation could not “speak on behalf of members of the executive committee concerning their individual motivation for a vote which took place eight years ago”, but that “a thorough investigation was conducted” by US prosecutor Michael Garcia, whose conclusions were made public last year. Mr Chung could not be reached for comment.
‘This is further disturbing evidence that Fifa completely ignored the technical bidding process in every respect’
Politics is never far away from great international sporting events, however much the participants and spectators may wish otherwise. The World Cup which starts in Russia today is no exception. For Vladimir Putin, facing accusations of interfering in Western elections and sanctioning assassination attempts, it represents a personal triumph that he will doubtless exploit for all it is worth.
Sports tournaments held in Russia have had a chequered history. The 1980 Moscow Olympics was boycotted by America and two dozen other countries in protest at the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The Winter Olympics in Sochi four years ago resulted in a doping scandal which affects Russian athletes to this day.
The fact that the World Cup is even being staged in Russia is mired in controversy amid allegations of bribery and corruption. This was supposed to be England’s tournament but the FA’S bid failed at the first hurdle, an experience so searing that there was no attempt to secure the 2026 World Cup, which is to be played in America, Mexico and Canada. Both America and Mexico (twice) have hosted the tournament since England last did in 1966. As we disclose today, Fifa documents show that the Russian bid was assessed as worst for “threat and risk”; and yet it succeeded in the murkiest of circumstances.
In the Commons yesterday, Theresa May said she would press the EU to enhance sanctions against Russia in response to its continued incursions in Ukraine, the Salisbury poisoning and interference in EU and American politics. Yet minutes earlier, she wished the England team well in a tournament which gives so much kudos to Mr Putin as to make all the talk of punishing Russia look redundant.
Had there been an international boycott of the World Cup, it really would have made Mr Putin take notice of the international opprobrium. The absence of senior royals or British politicians from Russia is unlikely to worry him or even be noticed. His audience, as always, is the Russian people.
Of course, we hope the tournament goes peacefully given the threat of violence to England supporters. We also wish the England team well and hope they fare better than in their last two international outings when they were knocked out at the group stage. But whatever the results, the sense that it should not be happening in Russia at all is hard to dispel.