Jul 7, 2014, 3:34 PM EDT
Sometimes criticizing FIFA begins to resemble shooting fish in a barrel, which is a perfect comparison considering soccer’s governing body is about as kind to the animal kingdom as unloading ammunition on a wooden container of goldfish.
The latest mess comes courtesy of Fuleco, that cute and fuzzy armadillo mascot meant to remind the world that Brazil is about two things: football and ecology. Yes, this adorable (?) blue and gold mascot has provided us with our next helping of World Cup controversy.
Fuleco was allegedly designed to
sell stuffed animals at $15 a pop bring awareness to the disappearing three-banded armadillo, known in Brazil as the tatu-bola. Instead, The Global Post reports, the mascot is just one part of an embarrassing failure by FIFA to make good on its “go green” claims.
But now, as millions around the world tune in to watch the ultimate soccer tournament, critics are claiming that FIFA’s sweet rhetoric on the environment is nothing more than crass corporate greenwashing, and that the organization is doing zip to save the unfortunate armadillo.
“It is not ethical,” says Rodrigo Castro, of Brazilian environmental group the Caatinga Association, whose campaigning was responsible for FIFA choosing the tatu-bola as the tournament mascot over 46 other proposals.
“You cannot exploit the image of an animal that is nearing extinction to make millions and then give nothing back.”
Castro says that a 10-year plan to save the armadillo would cost $12 million, and he had hoped that FIFA would contribute around 15 percent of that amount.
But although Continental Tire, one of the official sponsors of this year’s World Cup, has donated $45,000 toward the Caatinga Association’s tatu-bola project, FIFA has refused to give a single cent to any organization working to save the armadillo.
Well, that’s precious. But but but but… as the article points out, FIFA was able to pony up $25 million for a movie starring Tim Roth as Sepp Blatter. And it seems the whole Fuleco ordeal is just part of FIFA’s environment failings (although perhaps ‘scandal’ would be a better word for a plot Mr. Orange would be proud of).
Chris Gaffney, a Rio-based US academic who studies the impact of major sporting events, says the 2014 World Cup could have been organized at a fraction of the environmental and financial cost, including by making do with existing stadiums.
He even questioned the LEED environmental certification that the 12 host stadiums are receiving for supposedly being energy and water efficient.
“It’s basically a marketing tool because no one is accounting for the environmental costs of destroying existing stadiums and then rebuilding them. The same people that paid for the original stadium [Brazilian taxpayers] are being billed to demolish them and then build new ones.”
Goodness gracious, it isn’t getting better is it? And what impetus would anyone have to believe anything is going to change in the way FIFA operates for the tournaments in Russia, Qatar or 2030 World Cup: Moon. I can just see it now:
“FIFA is happy to announce that, as part of our lasting commitment to scientific exploration, World Cup: Moon will feature a tournament unlike anything the world’s ever seen… though it may have to be played outside of the traditional window, and in space suits.”
Hooray for sports!
- PST’s Major League Soccer Power Rankings – The faith-destroying edition 1
- PST’s Major League Soccer Player of the Week: LA Galaxy’s Landon Donovan 0
- What tomorrow’s goalkeeper platoon tells us about the U.S. goalkeeper void 5
- Jozy Altidore to captain U.S. Wednesday against Czech Republic 0
- With Radamel Falcao, can Manchester United challenge for the Premier League? 11
- Why Danny Welbeck’s move to Arsenal was the best Deadline Day deal 9