The world's biggest sporting event has been a case study in how big organizations struggle to innovate.
Soccer, or football, as the rest of the globe calls the game you play with your feet, head, and heart is the world's most popular game. In its vast sphere of influence, soccer is equivalent to Microsoft Windows of a decade ago, a fearsome international franchise with little competition. The old men of FIFA (the International Federation of Association Football) rule the sport with an iron fist, and have long ago made it clear that they believe change is for the weak.
Why mess with the tried and true formula of a game that can draw an audience of nearly a billion people for the final? But nothing lasts forever. Despite the vast worldwide popularity of soccer, the organization responsible for carrying this great game into the future increasingly resembles two formerly great companies that have come to be synonymous with mediocrity -- Dell Computers and Microsoft.
There was a time in the 1980's and 1990's when Microsoft appeared to have a lock on the desktop. The company owned Corporate America. IT managers knew they wouldn't be fired for buying the latest version of Windows, or for that matter, inexpensive Dell machines. The same could be said of World Cup soccer. While virtually every other sport has adjusted its rules to embrace faster, more athletic athletes and found successful ways to integrate technology, FIFA has essentially shipped the same creaky old product for decades.
Clout means you don't have to adapt. Since Microsoft possessed what critics might call market power there were few competitive brands available for business customers. Even if Windows was dull and cloudy, Apple and other upstarts didn't have a chance in hell of cracking the corporate marketplace. As in the game of monopoly, Microsoft used its market sway to keep many players off the board.
Then suddenly the game changed. Microsoft didn't get the Internet or the Web or Web 2.0. It didn't have to. It could continue selling bloated operating systems and cumbersome suites of programs because of the rubber stamp purchases of thousands upon thousands of lemming-like corporate IT managers. Similarly, the runaway success of international soccer made it possible for FIFA to ignore how technology and the Internet were making its blunders ever more visible.
And then, something wonderful happened. One by one, IT managers found the courage to say no. Today, corporations all over the world are beginning to reject Microsoft's iron hold on their data and operations. They are seizing upon superior alternatives.
This spring, Apple Computer passed Microsoft to become the world's most valuable technology company. Individuals adore iPhones, iPods, Macintoshes, and iPads, and corporations are belatedly realizing that men and women don't like to be forced to use tools at work that they find mediocre.
Meanwhile, the once celebrated Dell model of "efficiency, outsourcing and tight inventories," has come under attack, as the New York Times recently revealed that the company "shipped at least 11.8 million computers... that were at risk of failing because of the faulty components." Dell did not help its case, according to the New York Times, because its "employees went out of their way to conceal these problems."
Which leads us back to FIFA and the World Cup. Like the once all-powerful, dominating Microsoft, FIFA appears to have soccer fans in the palm of its hand. Even Americans have been enthralled by the dazzling athletes and their spirited play.
But that attention has only made it more apparent that the quality control of this World Cup is not far above Dell's computers. U.S. fans watched a game where we scored a legitimate winning goal, and then saw the ref pull it back. Against Algeria, Clint Dempsey was called offside. Replays showed he was clearly onside. Argentina was gifted a phony offside goal against Mexico. England scored the equalizer against Germany -- the ball was a yard within the goal -- and although everyone in the stadium knew it was a goal, the ref blundered on.
Next Paraguay scored the opening goal against Spain in the quarterfinal, only to have the marvelous strike pulled back by yet another questionable offside call. At the stadium FIFA didn't dare allow the showing of a replay, having already been embarrassed by earlier ref blunders.
Burying your head in the sand is no solution. The hardware of soccer is malfunctioning. Goal line technology is desperately needed. Is that too much to ask in 2010, for the World Cup? As for the anachronism known as offside, experts in physiology say the human eye frequently cannot call offside accurately (try simultaneously tracking the ball and two or more sprinting players separated by 20 to 30 meters). The offside rule is wired for failure, and unless FIFA wants to continue to run the risk of critical games upended by systemic errors -- luck and bad calls will define the World Cup.
The solution is not the stay-the-course, plodding Microsoft-style endorsed by the FIFA's president Sepp Blatter, but instead to recognize that soccer is a business that desperately needs innovation. Brainstorm a new, better offside rule, for instance, one that stops players from hanging around the goal (the intent of the rule) yet one that can be enforced equally. Rule that goal line cheating -- as in the ugly intentional handball by Uruguay that stole marvelous Ghana's victory -- is goaltending (basketball figured this out decades ago). And honestly, why couldn't there be at least one instant replay per side a game?
A thoughtful, forward-looking exploration would take a deeper look at what makes a good game great. No one wants more zero-zero overtime penalty kick snoozefests. Quite simply it's too hard to score. Goalies have gotten bigger and more acrobatic, defenses tighter, while the size of the goal has remained unchanged.
Multiple goals light up games. Scores of 2-1 or 3-1 tend toward the dramatic, as teams are forced to take more risks. In contrast, playing for a tie is no different than shipping the same old product over and over again.
Apple has shown brilliantly how to engage people through well-designed experiences and immersion, and there's much to be learned from its success. If FIFA wants to innovate and turn contests into thrillers -- instead of hapless statistical exercises in the random role of luck -- all it has to do is raise goal posts about 6 inches and make them about a foot wider. Those few inches will crowd out bad rules and bum refs.
Dull, defensive strategies will rarely succeed if the net is a little more inviting. That change alone would transform a lot of 1-0 contests into dramatic 2-1 affairs. Purists may scream, but FIFA made a far more sweeping change by introducing the gimmicky Adidas Jabulani ball for this World Cup. The wacky ball has sent countless shots awry, while penalizing goalies with freak shots that didn't deserve to be rewarded.
Change alone is not innovation. The best soccer, like the best computers or software, is an artful blend of function and design. Let's hope the old men of FIFA are wise enough to see where the future lies. Not in the illusion of safety represented by the status quo, but in creating richer, more engaging contests.
Fans deserve games decided by talent and heart, not a random blast from an official's whistle.