The World Cup 2014 — a fiesta of football or a mosh pit of money? What view will we receive from the mainstream media? If past events are anything to go by expect to be dazzled by the hype (if not the wall-to-wall advertising) but don’t expect much light to be shone into the murkier aspects of the tournament and football’s governing body Fifa.

All eyes are now on the World Cup in Brazil which starts on 12 June. Extensive TV coverage and an unhealthy brash nationalism is stoking up the excitement and anticipation of football fans everywhere.

But what are the realities behind the glitz and glamour of this iconic sporting tournament?

Past form is a good guide to what to expect. The 2006 World Cup in Germany was famous for the revelations around ticket allocation which meant huge numbers went to corporate hospitality, rich individuals and sponsors elbowing out ordinary football fans or leaving them to the prey of parasitic touts.

The system devised by Fifa and the 2006 Organising Committee forced many ticketless fans to pay touts’ exorbitant prices. Sponsors such as Coca-Cola, Budweiser and McDonald’s received one in six of all the tickets — 490,000 in total.

The 15 World Cup sponsors received up to 25,000 tickets each. A further six German domestic backers shared the rest.

The allocation for these “partners” of Fifa was 16 per cent. The original share for competing nations was 8 per cent for every game they play.

The organising body Fifa itself has in recent years been immersed in allegations from insiders, senior executives and investigators concerning bungs, corruption and bribery at the highest level.

Fifa’s choice to award the 2018 World Cup to Russia and the 2022 World Cup to Qatar has been widely criticised.

Russian kickbacks of cash and gifts given to Fifa executive members were said to be enough to secure the Russian 2018 bid.

Fifa President Sepp Blatter warned about the “evils of the media” in a speech to Fifa executive committee members shortly before they voted on the hosting of the 2018 World Cup. His comments followed the Sunday Times and BBC’s Panorama investigations of corruption within Fifa over the award of the 2018 venue.

The Sunday Times whistle-blowing source claimed that Fifa executive committee members Issa Hayatou and Jacques Anouma were paid $1.5 million (£890,000) to vote for Qatar. The emirate’s bid beat the United States in a final round of voting last December.

Blatter did not rule out reopening the 2022 vote if corruption could be proved but urged taking the matter “step by step.”

Qatar’s success has aroused controversy about the feasibility of hosting the World Cup in dangerously hot desert conditions.

The whistleblower also claimed that Qatar agreed to pay Amos Adamu, another committee member, for his support. Adamu was later suspended from voting after a Fifa ethics court ruled he solicited bribes from undercover Sunday Times reporters posing as lobbyists.

Allegations against Fifa officials were made to the British Parliament by David Triesman, the former head of England’s bid and the English Football Association. Triesman told an inquiry that four long-standing Fifa executive committee members Jack Warner, Nicolas Leoz, Ricardo Teixeira and Worawi Makudi engaged in “improper and unethical” conduct in the 2018 bidding which was won by Russia. All six Fifa voters have denied wrongdoing.

But what about the legacy of jobs, economic revival, regeneration etc which the World Cup is supposed to endow on host nations? The Swiss Labour Assistance (SLA) organisation published a report in 2010 which was a preliminary evaluation of the South African World Cup.

The report concluded that there would be very little legacy of benefit to trade unionists and the poorest South Africans from the World Cup.

In fact the World Cup’s consequent contribution to increasing social inequality in South Africa would be the true legacy.

Fifa was enriched by the tournament and the construction companies made money but they left behind debts and stadiium maintenance costs that are preventing the economy from improving.

For example, the country still needs 23 billion rand (£1.3bn) to prevent the collapse of its wastewater treatment system.

At the end of 2010 there were 12 million people in poor housing conditions. The 40bn rand (£2.3bn) cost of the 2010 World Cup could have built nearly 500,000 housing units which would have housed a quarter of those in poor conditions.

According to the SLA the tangible benefits of the World Cup were greatly exaggerated to legitimise a major rip-off and profiteering by Fifa, its commercial partners and local monopoly capitalists.

Further they state: “We can now clearly see that while the original guestimates in 2003 promised that South Africa could host the event with ‘minimal tangible costs’ involved and with ‘significant’ direct benefits, the outcome in reality is the converse.”