Corruption in FIFA as an Ethical Dilemma - Assignment Example

Name: Date: Institution: Instructor: 1. The Case Facts The allegations about corruption in FIFA was evident way before 2010 it was concerning the vote to ascertain the major hosts for the 2022 and 2018 world cups. The events that led to the decision saw two major officials get an exposure as a result of them trying to sell their votes; luckily the two were banned from voting. However, the two were exempted or rather banned from voting. The victory of Qatar in holding the 2022 world cup led to immediate concerns or suspicions relating to the fact that whether it had purchased the tournament; this was the case because of its football pedigree and its climate. [Rav11] Since FIFA has a history concerning the nature of the state it chooses to hold a world cup; that is relating to the weather conditions and the climate as well as the degree to which the state engages in football. The climatic conditions as well as the football pedigree of Qatar automatically disqualified them from holding a world cup in any scenario. Another concern was the case with swapping of votes between states.[Jan08] The scenario was that a whistleblower raised allegations about the same. Almajid who was a staff at Qatar’s bid team for 2022, alleged that the executives of FIFA were bribed with a minimum of $1.5 million to elect or rather vote for the Qatar state. However, the executive recanted the allegations; they asserted that the allegations were a fabrication; this allegation came simultaneously with the doomed bid of England to officially hold the 2018 world cup. Nevertheless, the House of Commons gained the evidence that four FIFA ex company members requested for several things in order to sell their votes.[Jon13] 2. The Main Figures The main figures in this particular controversy were the former FIFA vice president Qatari. Evidence showed that the former vice president made suspicious payments amounting to over 1 million pounds to alternative officials of football. One of the main and significant beneficiary was Warner Jack a former FIFA official; Many officials including Hayatou the African Football head have vehemently denied this allegations.[Kap13] 3. The Ethical Dilemma/ Ethical Issues The ethical dilemma is To proceed with Qatar as a state that holds the 2022 World Cup Or To revoke the election of Qatar to hold the 2022 World Cup The ethical dilemma in this case would be whether or not to award Qatar the priviledge of holding the world cup and whether or not the officials of FIFA acted in good faith or not. The questions one should ask oneself is whether the allegations are true and on what basis the officials were basing their decisions on.[Arc10] A dilemma is a scenario where an individual becomes torn between acting on two competitive decisions of equal magnitude, and where both of them have significant advantages for a person or an institution. Dilemmas are common in an individual and institutional day to day lives. Dilemmas may work positively or negatively to an individual, the process in which a decision is arrived at is the issue. A decision should be made in consideration of the laid out standards.[Rob12] Quite a number of facts are underpinned in this issue; they define the ethical dilemma in this scenario. The main ethical dilemmas are whether or not to award Qatar the advantage of holding the FIFA world cup in 2022, is Qatar a worthy state to hold the world cup? Who decide or chooses the state that holds the world cup? What state should have been considered in place of Qatar? And what are the views of a majority of individuals about the scenario? Historically, quite a number of states have engaged in vote trading; for instance Qatar, England and Russia the three have been accused of buying votes, although in some cases swapping of votes has failed. The ethical dilemma thus lies on the question of whether the officials were acting on their own behalf as FIFA or whether they were acting on the interest of the greater good in short utilitarianism.[Joh98] Was it ethical for FIFA and its officials to act the way they did? Ethics is the code of good conduct; when relating or deciding on facts that involves quite a number of individuals, particular consideration should be placed on the individuals who are involved and ethical effect of the decisions made. The feedback effect of every decision has a double effect; where more than one party is involved the decision has more impacts and considerable effects for the involved and uninvolved parties. Thereby the facts in this statements involve the key performance indices and the ethical considerations that would have been placed. It is likely for Qatar to be considered as a state that holds world cup; however, the decision should peg on the laid out rules, procedures as well as standards. 4. Ethical issues re-examined The ethical dilemma as well as the ethical issues was further emphasized or highlighted by the position that FIFA holds, how FIFA is viewed and the attachment and the priviledge placed on the scenario where a nation holds a world cup. A world cup is a world wide football occasion where qualifying states actively participate in football matches. The occasion takes place in a state selected by FIFA based on votes acquired and takes approximately one month. Decisions should be made bearing in mind the ethical implications, decisions could promote the needs for the greater good or promote the competitive advantage of one individual or a single unit thus ethical egoism. Every individual has the aspect where one has the tendency to promote the interest of oneself is ethical egoism as opposed to utilitarianism that promotes the need for the greater good. FIFA officials in facilitating the win for Qatar acted unethically since votes should be unbiased and non-prejudiced. The act of being biased overrides the foundations of utilitarianism and the ethical conducts. A decision made should never be subjective but objective neither should it be based on one man’s own interest. The effect of a decision of a FIFA nature is bound to affect more than one person, but the magnitude or the weight placed on a state holding the event is considerably overstated. 5. Major Highlights The highlights placed on the dilemma the officials had is considerable. Specifically the officials had a dilemma on whether to act in consideration of their own interest that is as per the bribe or the interest of FIFA or the entire world in general. The ethical implications of the decisions made was the possibility of losing their jobs, many individuals lost their jobs and the likelihood of facing international sanctions. Communication about holding the world cup is made by Eckert. Any rule does not have to be breached; in addition Eckert confirmed that some individuals were under investigation due to the magnitude of the issue. The decision maker in this case was FIFA as the officials were acting on behalf of FIFA. When an organization employs an individual, the decisions made by that person would be considered as a decision made by the fraternity as every action of an individual in the name of FIFA in this case or any other organization has a worldwide bearing. The conflicting demands in this case was whether to act professionally or whether to give in to self interest acting professionally means not giving in to bribe in order to skew the outcome of a decision; vote buying occurred, this challenged the decision that was supposed to be made. The conflicting demands also relate to the expectations individuals have placed on the decisions made by the organization and in this case FIFA. FIFA has a policy on how it selects the states that holds world cup. The manner in which Qatar was chosen contravened the laid down rules and procedures however the selection of Qatar was in some way justified as Qatar has never held world cup matches since time immemorial; but was the process and procedures justified. 6. Ethical Analysis Did the reaction of the officials of FIFA promote utilitarianism? in this case the answer will be NO since the action; promoted the interests of a few individuals and disregarded the interests of the majority in this case the individuals who benefited were the few officials of FIFA and the Qatar state thus the entire world was left in limbo and with a lot of questions to ask. As shown below: Utilitarian Approach In normative ethics, utilitarianism is a theory where a moral action is one that facilitates utility. One that facilitates economic well being, pleasure and the lack of suffering; It is a form of consequentialism that implies the means is justified by the end. Utilitarianism entails that a greater number benefits from an action. For instance, was due process followed? The interests of one party or few parties (ethical egoism) should not override the majority needs. Our actions should lead to happiness at the end. Nature places individuals under the mandate of two main masters pleasure and pain. This powers defines what one is supposed to do. A chosen thing should disapprove or approve whatever maximizes happiness as opposed to the one that diminishes excitement. Therefore the actions of the officials did not at all promote utilitarianism. Rights Rights are social, ethical or legal rules and principles of entitlements or rather freedom they are the essential or fundamental rules of a normative nature is permissible to people or owed or obligated to people according to specific conventions, legal and social or rather ethical theory.[Jan08] The physical or the natural world is not under the control of any human being it has to rely on the laid out standards as well as conventions. Happiness as well as all rounded benefits should be the end goal of any scenario. The end itself should be the major objective. Despite the fact that Qatar has never held any world cup no official should have been skewed to choose a country based on bias and prejudice. Since that facilitates subjectivism and opens the niche to subjectivism. Every one has the right to information where one has to gain the right information. FIFA owes everyone the right to provide correct information and the submission to correct procedures. It is not an individual role to decide for others, under the confines of duty, when one is placed in an involving occupation they have the prerogative of acting with due care and submitting to the contract under which they were employed.[Jan08] Distributive Justice Distributive justice on the other hand relates to the manner or nature of a societal just apportionment or allocation of services as well as goods in a particular society. The society in this case does not exhibit incidental inequalities of outcome. The society in this case is considered to be one that operates under the confines of distributive justice. Goods and services are allocated in a just way. Distributive justice promotes the performance duty; where one has to perform what he or she ought to do as per his or her job description. The officials contravened the confines of distributive justice; by acting in their own interests. Distributive justice entails not acting on emotions but considering others before self. Performance of duty could be blocked or distracted by major milestones e.g. bribes as was the case with officials of FIFA. Eventually they faced the consequences where most of them were sacked and underwent intensive investigations this led to immediate sanctions. Kantianism Kantianism is a philosophy developed by a philosopher known as Immanuel Kant. It is used to describe contemporary positions in mental philosophy, ethics and epistemology. Kantianism centres around duty rather than end goals or emotions. It facilitates the need to promote the ultimate good relating to beliefs that are rationally fundamental. Universalizing a statement or an action guides it to being valid or two major contradictions in conception. It leads to a perfect or coherent duty. According to Kantianism, duty is better than emotions or end goals, intertwining this scenario with Immanuel Kant’s Kantianism the actions of the officials would be regarded unethical. The officials never performed their duty; the duty they were obligated by FIFA. The action of the officials would according to Kantianism, be regarded as bad. The officials did not conform or adhere to reason; it basically overrode the laid down system, it did not permit the performance of what was rightfully obligated. Consequences or the outcome of an act does not contribute or add weight to the moral significance of the act. [Ste07] In the operations of FIFA, they are obligated to act specifically under the maxims where at that particular time they intend it to become universal law. Additionally FIFA has to act in a manner that humanity is not treated as a means to an end; but as an end itself. With regard to the above four approaches that is Kantian approach, rights, utilitarianism and distributive justice; the above case of FIFA can be effectively analyzed.[Ric15] The action of an institution should be such that the common good is facilitated. Public utility should be the end goal itself , uncertainty should be removed at all costs by promoting what is right; following procedures sometimes may seem laborious but it justifies why systems are placed.[Moh13] Rights are social, ethical or legal rules and principles of entitlements or rather freedom they are the essential or fundamental rules of a normative nature is permissible to people or owed or obligated to people according to specific conventions, legal and social or rather ethical theory Mohammed Bin Hammam’s operations were not at all justified at the time under Sepp Blatter and a Qatari; it could be argued that he was being patriotic, acting in the interests of his state, however, it goes against the four ethical maxims. Although he has been banned from all football activities that is not enough; Corruption is a killer of progress and the vice president should face more dire consequences. The evidence was concrete and indisputable. It is according to my recommendation that utilitarianism, Kantianism and distributive justice be employed in the operation of a decision. FIFA officials acted wrongly but that should be the beginning of transitions and changes for them. Mistakes usually happen but there should be dire consequences for the perpetrators. For instance, jail sentences, adverse sanctions and immediate cancellation of contracts. The ethical dilemma would be easy to deal with, in the case of the FIFA officials they had a dilemma whether to adhere to duty or whether to pursue self interest that is increase of wealth. Bribe is a one time thing, and salary is earned all year round, the officials should have developed or adhered to the laid down procedures, not being weak and not being vulnerable as was the case with the officials. FIFA should introduce stringent measures to eliminate vote buying and vote trading. Strin gent measures in the sense that disclaimer adoption, consequence creed integration and contract signing. When faced with an ethical dilemma, one should question oneself before making a judgement. Does an action promote the interest of oneself or all? Does a decision I make alter the duty I have? In addition, what am I obligated to do? A dilemma is a common scenario; the question however is how one deal with the dilemma. It is my recommendation that in addressing issues utilitarianism and the principles of Kantianism should be integrated. In conclusion, The FIFA issue was major and negative publicity for FIFA, however a revision of the procedures and integration of the ethical aspect would adversely change the operations of the institution. It would in positive outcomes as well as positive results and considerable admiration of the institution. References Rav11: , (Green, 2011), Jan08: , (Jan Dul, 2008), Jon13: , (Jonathan Wilson, 2013), Kap13: , (Kaplan, 2013), Arc10: , (Woodside, 2010), Rob12: , (Yin, Applications of Case Study Research, 2012), Joh98: , (Roemer, 1998), Ste07: , (Menary, 2007), Ric15: , (Richard Holt, 2015), Moh13: , (Mohammed Ben Sulayem, 2013), Read More