Editorial: Bitter taste of crucial non-vote will linger

In the end, they let him go with a smidgeon of dignity. Charlie Dempsey could have expected no better. The need to somehow appease South Africa and the supporters of its World Cup bid was too strong.

However, even when he steps down as Oceania Football Confederation president in September, the bitter taste of his crucial non-vote on the 2006 venue will remain. As will the widespread incredulity at his wilful decision to ignore a clear instruction to support South Africa after England's elimination from the Fifa vote.

Mr Dempsey has given no satisfactory explanation of his appalling misjudgment. In reality, there is none. At best, an elderly man's nerves failed him. At worst, and in greater likelihood, this was an administrator arrogantly disregarding the wishes of those he represents.

Mr Dempsey blamed his abstention on intolerable pressure as the race between South Africa and Germany entered the home stretch. He pointed to attempts to bribe him and a string of telephone calls pleading for his vote. He had, he said, never realised the World Cup was so important to so many people. Such sentiment borders on the absurd.

Mr Dempsey has sat on the executive committee of soccer's governing body since 1996 and first sat on a Fifa committee more than 15 years ago. This is a man, moreover, once touted as a possible Fifa president.

Having sat at the table of the rich, the royal and the famous, Mr Dempsey was well aware of soccer's premier position in the pantheon of sport. Likewise, he knew that hosting the World Cup final is worth billions of dollars. And that the World Cup, like the Olympics, has a history littered with allegations of bribery and corruption. There was nothing honourable about this abstention.

Perversely, he may, however, be the catalyst for an overdue revamp of Fifa's voting procedures. In this context, he will be seen as the man who blew the whistle on the pressure, legal and underhand, imposed upon Fifa delegates. Already, there is talk of a rotation system being introduced for future World Cups. If soccer's premier competition is to truly reflect the game's global impact, it must be shared around.

There should be no repeat of the horse-trading which saw Asian members of the Fifa executive allied with Europe, effectively thwarting the bid of another developing region. Germany's success should be the last time that money and influence override a wider vision.

Mr Dempsey's inaction should also lead to a revision of Oceania's procedures and priorities. Its executive should, of course, have voted on its second choice.

England was never likely to be allocated the World Cup. Had a vote been taken, Mr Dempsey would not have left for Zurich with an instruction which he somehow imagined to be room to manoeuvre.

More fundamentally, it is nonsensical that a confederation of developing soccer nations would ever cast its vote for England. On almost every level - geography, the level of the game and relationships in other codes - Oceania has far, far more in common with South Africa.

Furthermore, the benefits for South Africa economically and as a buttress for democracy could not be discounted. And why after England was virtually eliminated by the rioting of its fans at Charleroi during Euro 2000 did Oceania persevere with its support? A decision taken by the its executive in May soon became untenable. Why was the subject not revisited and a vote taken to support South Africa?

Had such logical action been taken, Mr Dempsey would have been in no doubt about his responsibilities. An illustrious career, during which the All Whites enjoyed their turn in the World Cup sun, would have been saved.

Now, however, Mr Dempsey will be remembered not as the galvaniser of New Zealand soccer, but for one mad moment of inaction. South Africans have every right to see him as the man who cheated them of a dream. He owes them an apology.