Johannesburg — THE general euphoria and feelings of thankfulness following the 2010 World Cup have seemingly precluded anyone from now assessing Fifa's role in the tournament. Gratitude for cracking the nod from Fifa to host it should not blind the South African public to the less attractive features of the World Cup - those for which Fifa is responsible.

On the field, these manifested themselves in palpable unfairness in the decision making for which Fifa's match officials are responsible. Fifa claims they got it right 96% of the time. The problem is that when they got it wrong, they did so spectacularly. As a consequence of refereeing errors, it can be argued that England bowed out early and Mexico lost a match it could have drawn. Fifa president Sepp Blatter apologised, but whether corrective action is taken remains to be seen.

Had Fifa put in place a simple review system using modern technology, a far fairer outcome was easily achievable. There has been a chorus of criticism of the antiquated way in which the process of adjudication of the matches is still carried out 10 years into the 21st century. If Fifa does not take steps to improve this situation soon, one can expect to hear cynics claim there are murkily suspicious reasons for keeping the current system of refereeing in place.

It is, however, off the field that Fifa's role is open to even more criticism. The process by which Fifa selects the country in which the tournament is held every four years is both opaque and unaccountable.

The Institute for Security Studies has commissioned a study of the workings of Fifa, which is appropriately titled Player and Referee - Conflicting Interests and the 2010 Fifa World Cup. In it, Collette Schulz Herzenberg characterises Fifa as "the official organiser of the World Cup (which) has long been plagued by allegations of lack of transparency and corruption".

She draws attention to "the serious allegations of greed, nepotism and corruption that include scandals involving vote rigging, cash for contracts and dodgy ticket sales - all of which allegedly involve, and benefit, Fifa officials".

Fifa's response has been to revise its code of ethics for officials and to appoint an ethics committee.

The UK's Daily Telegraph dismissed these moves, describing the ethics committee in less than glowing terms: "Conceived as a fig leaf against the torrent of misconduct allegations against the Fifa members, Blatter rendered the committee toothless by preventing any substantial allegations from being heard."

It is a matter of public record that the sale of tickets for this year's tournament was plagued by computer crashes and questionable practices. Fifa's accommodation arm, Match, hardly covered itself in glory by overbooking hotel rooms, then belatedly dumping the considerable excess back in the laps of hapless hoteliers.

The gyrations around the choice of venue in Cape Town may turn out to be the most memorable piece of 2010 chicanery for which Fifa bears responsibility. By means of pressure and influence brought to bear, which could arguably amount in law to duress or undue influence, vitiating the contracts involved, Blatter used his position to force a change to Cape Town's decision to have a relatively inexpensively upgraded Athlone Stadium as its venue, instead foisting upon the long-suffering taxpayer a bedpan-shaped stadium in Green Point that was never quite filled during the tournament and is unlikely to be filled in the future.

While Fifa's heavy-handed approach to ambush marketing fades to a memory, and Blatter's sycophantic musings about Durban as an Olympic host city are soon forgotten, it remains to be seen whether there is any political will left in SA to stand up to Fifa's shenanigans. The legal options around the stadium in Green Point are worth considering on the basis of the details set out in Player and Referee.

Expect Fifa to get away with it all, as is its wont. The event's organiser trumps proper regulation through the generation of a warm and amiable glow that masks the stench beneath the surface of Fifa's untaxed empire. Transparency and accountability are conspicuously absent.

Hoffman is with the Institute for Accountability in Southern Africa.