Australia's World Cup campaign has not been without its low points. It's hard to get lower than four goals down. However over the weekend we appeared to have achieved just that, although this time off the field.
On Friday Fairfax press broke the story that AusAID, the agency responsible for managing Australia's aid budget, had agreed to help Football Federation Australia's bid to host the World Cup by boosting spending in Africa and the Pacific.
To get the guernsey in 2018 (which we've since dropped) or 2022, Australia must convince the 24 very influential men who make up FIFA's executive committee that Down Under is the perfect fit for the world game.
With four members of the executive from Africa (Egypt, Ivory Coast, Cameroon and Nigeria) and another from the Pacific (Tahiti), AusAID was approached to help lobby in its own special way.
In August the government announced that $4 million would be provided over four years for 'football-delivered' aid to the Pacific. The Football Federation of Australia is keen to trial something like that in Africa.
To be fair, not all of the aid money went to this sort of 'football-themed' aid. Nor do I want to imply that sport can't be used to combat poverty and the factors that keep people poor. Indeed an old colleague of mine from a Catholic NGO swears a PNG Rugby League team could do more good than many other development projects in that country.
However the obvious sticking point is that out of all the factors that influence Australia's aid program, hosting the World Cup shouldn't figure.
Or should it? Many people tend to assume that aid is about 'helping people'. However since the 2006 White Paper on Australian Aid, the overall reference point for aid has been to 'assist developing countries to reduce poverty and achieve sustainable development, in line with Australia’s national interest'.
The last line is the clincher. Not the cry of the poor, nor the demands of justice, or even the pull of our basic humanity. No, our aid program is about our national interest.
We would be mortified if a church agency like Caritas Australia or St Vincent De Paul ever came out with such a self-serving clause. As donors we may want to be considered but not to the point where we eclipse the people we seek to help.
And while we may argue secular institutions can lower their standards, we must surely feel that we