FIFA's red card scandal exposed a gap in corporate corruption oversight. The UN must fix it.

The World Cup has reignited the global conversation around corporate corruption, but amid all the noise, there is little talk of solutions. It is clear that the current anti-corruption landscape is far too overcrowded to be effective, but the question remains: what can be done to fight the increase in scandals?

For me, the answer lies with the UN. Specifically, it must combine fractured global efforts into one watchdog. Give it rigorous review processes. Unilateral jurisdiction. The authority to delegate investigations. And, crucially, the mandate to impose financial sanctions. All driven by the UN, as the largest and most legitimate collaboration of international governments.

That would be a far better setup than the current tangled web of overlapping authorities, bodies, and organizations which provides no clear sense of who should govern what incidents.

The EU has the clearest hierarchy, with supranational organizations, such as the Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), sitting above member states' own national anti-corruption bodies, authorities, or processes. But while there is at least some sort of structure here, the landscape is still crowded. Across the pond, the US’s approach is messier still. Its anti-corruption efforts are largely decentralized and can vary at the state and even city level.

That is just a brief explanation of the status quo across the US and the EU, let alone the rest of the world. We must also consider all of the national and international industry-specific governing bodies – including the likes of FIFA and UEFA – which have their own governance processes.

All of this is to say that, currently, anti-corruption governance is a complicated, messy area. The landscape is oversaturated, increasingly fractured, and there is a distinct lack of clarity on jurisdiction and responsibility.

That gap in ownership only stalls action, meaning incidents are policed long after the damage is done and penalties come far too late. I would even go so far as to say that this inaction encourages lax governance. Without action, what is the deterrent? Corporations can continue to reoffend in the meantime, and questionable behaviour simply embeds within the organization.

We are watching this piecemeal approach fail in real time. Corporate corruption scandals are coming thick and fast from all corners of the globe. From one of the UK's largest money-laundering cases, Fowler Oldfield, to Glencore's bribery across West Africa. And of course, we all remember the likes of Cambridge Analytica. It is rife, and the list just goes on.

We cannot afford to keep losing ground in this way. Secret handshakes and shady deals fundamentally threaten the sovereignty of free enterprise and erode trust in the markets. This issue cannot be left unchecked, and that is why we need a global, impartial institution with the mandate and the teeth to fight malpractice head-on.

In my view, the natural home for such a sensitive and significant authority is the UN. With 193 member nations, it has near-universal representation and its legitimacy is widely accepted.

Any other attempt to centralize anti-corruption practices by a different region or coalition of governments would likely fail. Few governments want to surrender domestic sovereignty on such issues and certainly would not if they felt there might be a risk of outside influence on the application of the law. But the UN carries a unique, and respected, international prestige. It is far more likely that global governments would get behind the organization that has already proven its moral and ethical rigour through its work in humanitarian aid and international law.

That is why the UN must work to combine and streamline the various global efforts in each region and build a centralized, fully fanged, international watchdog. The regulator must be given the authority to jump on incidents, delegate investigations to the relevant national or supranational authorities, and it must use a transparent, rigorous review process to ensure offending organizations are held to account.

It has started work in this area, with the Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) and its decision-making body, the Conference of the States Parties (COSP). But the purpose of this organization is not to serve as a watchdog. It only convenes every two years, lacks the mandate, the power, and the reach to go toe-to-toe with international corporations accused of misconduct, and is unable to investigate and sanction these instances.

Against the backdrop of a globally fragmented anti-corruption landscape, it's not enough – but the core idea, giving the UN a seat at the global corporate corruption oversight table, is a good one. Now, policymakers need to take it one step further.

The status quo is clearly failing. FIFA's red card controversy shocked the world, but it's just the tip of the iceberg. And frankly, it illuminates a far broader and more insidious issue.

A fresh approach is needed, and it's needed now. The UN must step in and create a universal regulator – it's the only organization with any hope of keeping these scandals in check.