The 161-page indictment filed against 14 individuals connected to FIFA makes depressing reading. It identifies page after page of what the United States Justice Department says are corrupt transactions, usually involving the sale of marketing or broadcast rights relating to national football teams and international competitions, not least the FIFA World Cup.

According to the indictment, the typical scheme went like this: someone senior in the federation (the indictment is entirely related to the federations of North and South America) would sell the distribution rights to a marketing company, which would then sell those rights to a TV channel or sporting goods company that would ultimately make money by selling to customers. As part of this deal, the indictment claims, the marketing company in the middle would facilitate payments to the federation executive. Simple, really. By selling through a (corrupt) intermediary, the football executives could cream off some of the money.

If the charges stand, then the individuals involved could face lengthy jail time and personal ruin. The question is whether the investigation will also lead to the reform of FIFA. The problem is that the organization of a sports federation invites the kind of behavior alleged here, so that while catching a few of the guilty might act as a deterrent, it is unlikely to deal with the fundamental problem. Widespread reform can be elusive, in the same way that arresting a few drug dealers —  no doubt desirable in its own right — does little to stop the drug trade.

One obvious solution to the corrupt behavior alleged by the Justice Department would be to force sports federations to publish details of all the contracts they sign, with all the numbers, so anyone can see what was paid. It’s hard to think of any business in the world that provides that level of transparency, and indeed it’s likely that many legitimate buyers of football rights would resist seeing the terms of their contracts made public. These contracts might contain clauses about possible events that the buyers of broadcast rights would prefer to keep private, for example.

But once you allow anything less than complete transparency, the middlemen will find a way to allow both sides the freedom of maneuver that they want. Some will argue that the process of reforming an organization like FIFA is not so much about the rules as about rooting out the corrupt individuals. There are many reasons to be skeptical about the potential to get ‘the right kind of people’ in charge. The leaders of major sports organizations are ambitious politicians who usually need financial resources in order to maintain their standing. The current controversies about campaign finance in US elections suggest that it is impossible to keep money out of politics, and inevitably people will ask where the money originated.

Perhaps most worryingly for FIFA and the future of the World Cup, it’s not even clear that people around the world agree on the meaning of corruption. This is a culturally sensitive issue. In many countries it is the norm to pay individuals a gratuity for making things happen. When you tip a waiter or doorman you don’t expect the sum to be public or the transaction to be considered a bribe, even if you follow your tip with ‘Now please find me the best table.’

In northwest Europe and the United States, we have now drawn a sharp distinction between this legal activity and the illegal activity of giving gratuities to public officials or individuals involved in arms-length transactions. Not everyone in the world thinks like this. No doubt there are many executives inside FIFA who, until now, have thought of themselves as ‘clean,’ but must be wondering if any of their actions might be caught by the Justice Department’s promise that ‘this indictment is not the final chapter in our investigation.’

Building a coalition on a global scale — and that is really what the World Cup and FIFA represent — requires immense compromises, and often a willingness to not look too deeply into what is going on. Most people might applaud the Justice Department’s assault on the worst excesses of FIFA. But if this investigation goes much deeper, resistance might stiffen. The warring parties might break up into regional blocs, and the World Cup itself might be the victim. If that is the price of justice, some might say, then it is a price worth paying.