While FIFA acknowledged that low attendance figures were to be expected when it selected Taiwan over more football/futsal savvy countries like Iran and Thailand to host the 2004 FIFA Futsal World Championship, it probably didn't expect the host nation's football association to have major organizational problems.
Within the opening days of the competition a series of administrative and clerical errors and a barrage of bad press had already marred FIFA's impressions of the Chinese Taipei Football Association's (CTFA, 中華台北足球協會) organizational prowess.
PHOTO: GEORGE TSORNG, TAIPEI TIMES
Responsibility for FIFA's ire should not solely fall on the shoulders of the beleaguered soccer association. Even before the competition kicked off on Nov. 21, politics and money had already raised their ugly heads and put its success in question.
Instead of taking the opportunity to exploit the potential media coup that goes hand-in-hand with hosting an event sanctioned by one of the world's largest and certainly most influential sporting organizations, the government opted to take a back seat.
According to a CTFA source, who requested anonymity, the choice of Taipei as the event's base was a major factor in the central government's choice not to give it full support. It was afraid that any overt financial backing of the event would be misinterpreted as support for the city's Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Mayor, Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九).
"[The Central Government] was more than happy to fund the construction of a NT$7.5 billion stadium in Kaoshiung, which is DPP-run, in order to host the World Games in 2009, but it wasn't going to give us a dime because of Mayor Ma," said the CTFA insider.
The Central Government's sole contribution to the event was made in January, when the National Council on Physical Fitness and Sport (NSPFS, 行政院體育委員會) presented the CTFA with NT$15 million. The soccer association was expected to cover the event's costs, as well as creating a national futsal squad from scratch, hiring coaching staff, organizing training programs and promoting futsal in schools nationwide. All with the limited subsidy.
In order to supplement the NSPFS's support, the CTFA secured financial backing of NT$13 million from the Taipei City Government, much of which was used to ensure the venues met with FIFA standards.
Additional funding from local sponsorship deals and from the CTFA's own coffers meant that the soccer association had a budget of NT$30 million to stage the event.
The soccer governing body paid all travel and accommodation costs of FIFA officials and members of all participating teams.
"Everybody knows that Taiwan is not a soccer- or futsal-friendly environment. And obviously to be able to stage a sporting event like this successfully was going to take a lot of work, both organizationally and financially," said Chang Chan-wei (張展維), general secretary of the CTFA. "We've never hosted an event of this scale before and problems arose because we weren't supported as much as I would have liked."
According to the NSPFS, the official reason behind the government's reluctance to subsidize the CTFA with an amount in excess of NT$15 million was due to the association's non-disclosure of its finances. This is something that Chang and the CTFA deny, stating that they have been more than open with their financial situation.
The reported political shenanigans and the government's perceived insensitivity to the situation of hosting a high-level international sporting event and the message this sends about Taiwan to the world, left respected veteran sports journalists like James Chan (詹健全) in a state of bewilderment.
"It was stupid. The games, or parts of them, are televised in over 100 countries. It's the perfect platform from which to promote Taiwan. I don't understand why the NSPFS didn't pay attention to this event and, with the exception of the opening ceremony, why its representatives have been noticeably absent during it?" Chan said.
Reports berating the CTFA for its mishandling of the event due to financial and staffing constraints were rife even before the event even had kicked off. A month prior to the event CTFA officials informed the local media that it was required to apply for accreditation via FIFA.
This proved incorrect, as it is FIFA's policy that the host nation of any event handle local press credentials internally, a point which was made clear by FIFA to the CTFA a year ago. Passes were finally issued to upwards of 50 members of the local press less than 72 hours before the Futsal World Championship was due to begin.
Fallout from the accreditation debacle proved more serious than CTFA officials had expected. The local press starting picking holes in every aspect of the competition and the CTFA's poor control skills were exposed in the opening days of the tournament.
Everything from the lack of inter-venue transportation and the paucity of on-site venue information, to the slapdash event program was reported. Even the lack of beverages in the press room made headline news.
The most telling and certainly least amusing of the CTFA's mishandlings of the event surrounds that of venue security. The overly-relaxed manner in which sporting events are overseen in Taiwan proved far from adequate and didn't meet with FIFA's stringent security standards, especially at the National Taiwan University Gymnasium.
According to FIFA, the four-story building posed problematic because unlike most FIFA venues, which are more often than not standalone stadiums, the gym was open to the public. And while FIFA acknowledges it would have been ridiculous to issue security passes to everyone who entered the building, the security staff on duty repeatedly allowed those not wearing identity tags into areas FIFA had allocated as "secure zones."
"FIFA pays great attention to security. Sporting events can be targets for criminals and FIFA tries everything to avoid this at a FIFA event," said Andreas Werz, FIFA's Head Media Officer of the FIFA Futsal World Championship Chinese Taipei 2004.
"Usually in Taiwan there's no security at sporting events and people can come and go as they please," Chang said. "We were aware of FIFA's strict guidelines, but this is Taiwan and tight security can put people off."
Though organization has been poor, the sporting action has been good. According to Ricardo Setyon, futsal reporter for Brazil's sports daily Lance! the games have been some the best he has seen. Even crowd attendance records that have fluctuated between 3,700 and 250, haven't kept the Brazilian soccer journalist from enjoying the 2004 Futsal World Championship.
"Because there's been 20 percent less goals than Guatemala in 2000 and no huge results it's been called `shit' by sections of the [futsal] press," said Setyon. "In my view this is the opposite and shows that there is an amazing level of skill in this competition."
Sadly for Taiwan the on-court action may not be FIFA's lasting impression of the tournament. It could be some time before FIFA forgets about the lack of publicity, futsal fever, giant screens and posters in Taipei. But then, with a poultry NT$400,000 publicity budget, what could the CTFA have really hoped to achieve?
May 6 to May 12 Those who follow the Chinese-language news may have noticed the usage of the term zhuge (豬哥, literally ‘pig brother,’ a male pig raised for breeding purposes) in reports concerning the ongoing #Metoo scandal in the entertainment industry. The term’s modern connotations can range from womanizer or lecher to sexual predator, but it once referred to an important rural trade. Until the 1970s, it was a common sight to see a breeder herding a single “zhuge” down a rustic path with a bamboo whip, often traveling large distances over rugged terrain to service local families. Not only
Ahead of incoming president William Lai’s (賴清德) inauguration on May 20 there appear to be signs that he is signaling to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and that the Chinese side is also signaling to the Taiwan side. This raises a lot of questions, including what is the CCP up to, who are they signaling to, what are they signaling, how with the various actors in Taiwan respond and where this could ultimately go. In the last column, published on May 2, we examined the curious case of Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) heavyweight Tseng Wen-tsan (鄭文燦) — currently vice premier
The last time Mrs Hsieh came to Cihu Park in Taoyuan was almost 50 years ago, on a school trip to the grave of Taiwan’s recently deceased dictator. Busloads of children were brought in to pay their respects to Chiang Kai-shek (蔣中正), known as Generalissimo, who had died at 87, after decades ruling Taiwan under brutal martial law. “There were a lot of buses, and there was a long queue,” Hsieh recalled. “It was a school rule. We had to bow, and then we went home.” Chiang’s body is still there, under guard in a mausoleum at the end of a path
Last week the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) released a set of very strange numbers on Taiwan’s wealth distribution. Duly quoted in the Taipei Times, the report said that “The Gini coefficient for Taiwanese households… was 0.606 at the end of 2021, lower than Australia’s 0.611, the UK’s 0.620, Japan’s 0.678, France’s 0.676 and Germany’s 0.727, the agency said in a report.” The Gini coefficient is a measure of relative inequality, usually of wealth or income, though it can be used to evaluate other forms of inequality. However, for most nations it is a number from .25 to .50