“If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs” is the opening line and a half of the poem “If” by Rudyard Kipling. The end of that second line reads, “and blaming it on you.”
There is no doubt that in the modern world we lack leaders. We lack people willing to accept responsibility for their actions, or more appropriately their inaction. On the political front this has never been more evident, and unfortunately it is our leaders who set the tone for the world we live in. Their vanity, greed and lack of morals impact the society in which we all live.
The same is true in sport. Whereas there may be some outstanding examples of humility, and respect on the fields of play, sports administrators have, and are in many sports letting their sport down, as well as those who play and support it. Never has this been more evident than in the corridors of FIFA, where we witnessed those given the responsibility to safeguard the game’s future, letting millions down due to their own greed and vanity.
The lack of culpability has left a bitter taste in the mouths of many. Yet worse still is how so many sports have now appeared to adopt administration models similar to that of FIFA’s, where others are exploited, or rewarded for personal gain.
In May 2011 Asian Football Confederation President Mohammed Bin Hammam was charged with offering bribes for votes as he ran for the Presidency of FIFA, and was forced to appear before FIFA’s ethics committee. Bin Hammam withdrew from the presidential race just days before the vote, leaving Blatter to run unopposed. His manifesto had been built around “Transparency.”
Prior to the election at the FIFA Congress English FA Chairman David Bernstein addressed all of the member nations and called for the election to be postponed. He asked for time to be given so that another candidate or candidates could be found. He was reported as saying “We are subject to universal criticism from Governments, sponsors, media and the wider public. A Coronation without an opponent provides a flawed mandate.” His plea fell on deaf ears and he left the stage in silence. When a vote was taken his motion was defeated 172 to 17.
Argentina’s Julio Grondona Chairman of FIFA’s Finance Committee not surprisingly went into bat for Blatter. “We always have attacks from England” he was reported as saying, “mostly with lies, and the support of journalism which is more busy lying than telling the truth. Please leave the FIFA Family alone.” he continued. When corruption was exposed within FIFA, the then deceased Grondona was blamed for approving corrupt payments.
In 2017 Jorge Luis Arzuaga, a former Swiss Banker pleaded guilty to money laundering charges following the US investigation into FIFA-related corruption. He admitted opening bank accounts in Switzerland for Grondona and channelling up to USD$25m in bribes to him and other high-ranking FIFA officials from a TV rights marketing company called Torneos, based in Argentina!
That aside, how many sports today use that term ‘family’ as Grondona did to defend FIFA? How many call themselves a “family?” Yet, sadly most are the the least family-like; unless you are referring to a Mafia-like family.
Here are some key indicators as to whether your sport is heading down a similar path as FIFA.
Can anyone be elected? Or can a person only be elected from within or if put forward by the current powers that be? Are all elections truly independent? In other words are they overseen by independent auditors or are they overseen by those already elected? Are the mechanisms there for an independent outsider to stand?
Are those doing the electing rewarded with positions on various sub-committees? In FIFA such positions came with a number of “benefits.” Are all benefits such as per diem payments and travel costs declared to those they represent? Is all remuneration (including travel expenses) to Board and Committee Members recorded and on the public record, available for all to see? If not, why not? If there is nothing untoward, such payments should be made available for people to assess whether it is appropriate and how much is being spent. It should not be lumped into one sum in an annual report. After it was rocked by scandal the International Olympic Committee are now far more open and reveal in their annual report “the IOC covers the cost of the President’s expenses which amounted to USD 286 thousand in 2017 and USD 305 thousand in 2016,” They do not reveal however what the money was spent on.
The change in FIFA started under the Presidency of Brazilian Joao Havelange. The man who ousted Englishman Sir Stanley Rous on the back of the African vote at the 1974 FIFA Congress. Rous had been FIFA President from 1961. It is worth mentioning that history has claimed that Rous’s downfall was not banning South Africa from World football due to their Apartheid regime. He was open in his stance on this issue, believing that if a country was internationally recognised, then FIFA should accept its Football Association. He did not believe that FIFA should set itself up as a judge on Politics and social conditions. To back up those beliefs he was the man who fought for Germany to be re-admitted to FIFA after the War, and succeeded in convincing many who were opposed to such a move. So rightly or wrongly he stood by his views. Interestingly Havelange and Blatter had disparate views to Rous’s when it came to Politics. A case in point is that FIFA currently has 211 Member nations, the United Nations recognise that there are 195 countries in the world, and they have 193 Member countries. The Holy See and State of Palestine being the two that are not members.
Rous was the man who copyrighted the laws of the game in 1938. For the forty year life of that copyright he never accepted a penny in payment. Rous was never paid as President of FIFA, and when made Honorary President he was offered a pension by his replacement. He accepted the title but declined the pension stating, having never been paid for working at FIFA he could not countenance being paid for not working.
Maybe when Grondona spoke it was FIFA’s conscience speaking, harking back to the leadership of a man who would not be corrupted, or take money unless he had earned it, a man who ultimately had the good of the game solely in his heart.
Many have accused Havelange of buying the votes of the African representatives to oust Rous, this has never been proven. However Havelange told author David Yallop who wrote “How they Stole the Game” that a senior executive friend at Lufthansa paid the travel cost of six African delegates to attend the congress and vote for him.
How many organisations have Board members assisting those with voting powers to attend crucial meetings where votes are cast, be it with airfares or accommodation? Do those accepting such favours realise that they are compromising their personal integrity, impartiality and that of their nation and the sport?
Sadly these practises have become commonplace across many sports and on many levels, be it free tickets to international games or black tie dinners, all can be classified as inducements. Those who accept them in the modern era, and in light of the exposes that eventuated from inside FIFA cannot claim naivety. So what is it that makes them think it is OK? Is it the line from the film Wall Street that still resonates in their minds, “The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works.”
It has been revealed now that one of the ways that both Havelange and Blatter kept power and made sure that the nations that they needed to vote for them kept voting for them was via FIFA Development projects. It all appeared above board, and most important of all no one asked any questions.
When this area was investigated it showed that the monies flowing to developing continents such as Africa, Asia and the Americas had had an incredible impact. The money had certainly helped in creating artificial pitches and making it easier to play football. Some money had disappeared, but not as much as many imagined.
However in David Conn’s book “The Fall of the House of FIFA” Domenico Scala, a Swiss Corporate Executive who was recruited by FIFA to head Governance reforms and also Chair their audit and compliance committee gave his opinion. “There is clearly a concrete record of Development with the money, the evidence is there on the ground.” He was quoted as saying. “But it was a system of patronage, by which the President distributed money to the Electorate. Blatter was a master of playing the electorate, and the FIFA system,” he importantly added.
So once again be wary as to where the powers that be invest their money when it comes to development. It may need to be monitored carefully, as like FIFA it can appear to be directed with the best motives, but there may well be an underlying request for ‘loyalty’ – or payback – when the appropriate time arises.
Interestingly when the Swiss Authorities swooped in Zurich to arrest members of the FIFA Executive Committee in 2015, FIFA then adopted a position that it was the victim. Trying to imply that this was nothing to do with the game’s Governing body. When Blatter was re-elected as President he continued that story line, that FIFA was innocent. He stated that the members of the Executive Committee who had brought this scandal upon the organisation were representatives of their Confederations, “Over whom we have no control.” He said.
Ironically it was Sir Stanley Rous who had pushed for the creation of the Confederations, as he believed it was vital that FIFA decentralise its control “rather than become a vast bureaucracy based in Europe and out of touch.” Little did he know how the set up of the Confederations would lead to his downfall and that of FIFA. Rous believed that the Confederation model would enable FIFA to hear and understand the needs of the countries in each of these continents. The question now has to be asked whether that was the case in the beginning and are they still relevant today?
So many sports operate under a similar model with Confederations controlling the region, but does this model have relevance now with so many options available in terms of communication? Every member nation can be heard far easier than in the past. By abolishing the Confederations would sport then prevent voting en bloc?
There will be the argument that FIFA uses their Confederations for World Cup Qualification so that the tournament has representation from around the globe, rather thanzA necessarily the best 32 teams competing. In other sports the Confederations are the basis for Olympic qualification, but once again in the world today is that ensuring we have the best athletes, or just a quota from each region? What is more important, global representation or the best competing against each other? In the past month in one sport Australia has been asked not to send athletes to Oceania qualifiers as the other nations know that their athletes will win most of the Olympic berths. The feeling is that this will result in other nations in the region not bothering to send their athletes. (World Cup Expansion Makes No Sense)
Another area that fans need to look at is that of Consultancy fees. Many a board member in football, despite having been elected and having made a commitment to carry out the duties of that role as and when required, has then received consultancy fees when overseeing a specialist project. Or their company has been given the contract to prepare such a report. This was yet another way to keep people “sweet” and be sure you could rely on their vote.
Following the arrests in 2015 the US Attorney General Loretta Lynch stated “the indictment alleges corruption that is rampant, systemic and deep-rooted, both abroad and here in the United States.” She went on to say “It has profoundly harmed a multitude of victims, from the youth leagues and developing countries that should benefit from revenue generated by the commercial rights these organisations hold, to the fans at home and throughout the world, whose support for the game makes those rights valuable.”
Every fan and every player has power to influence the game they love as their voice has commercial clout. If monies intended for youth development are not coming down from the top questions need to be asked.
Every sport has a constitution, or statutes under which it is supposed to operate. It is a requirement to be a member of many of the International bodies. If changes are to be made to these documents all members are supposed to vote on the proposed changes, they are certainly meant to be made aware of changes. That has in some sports not happened. Yet most involved are unaware as many have never even read the documents. Two board members questioned in the past month advised this writer that they had never read their sport’s Constitution!
Most will have under a section headed as “Objects” what their role is, and most will state something similar to this which was taken directly from a major sporting body’s constitution: “is formed is to be the sole governing body for women’s and men’s (sport taken out) and to: a) conduct, encourage, promote, advance, control and manage all levels of (Sport taken out) interdependently with members and others;” Is your Governing body fulfilling all of those roles? Or is the focus solely on the elite part of the sport? This element that they will claim generates money; but also has the highest costs.
It is important to read these documents. They are there to keep a check on those running your sport. If they have a clause absolving the Board of any responsibility alarm bells should go off. Certainly in most Western countries, and a large number in Asia, board members are accountable for the decisions that they make on behalf of the company they are overseeing. If they make decisions that result in financial losses, they can be held accountable by law for those losses. So if a clause has been inserted to try and take away that responsibility questions need to be asked. ( Twisting the Knife – Rugby WA did not go into administration for the reasons stated, that the board were to be held accountable. They were in the end bailed out financially).
FIFA had a very convenient rule when its corruption was uncovered. If a member resigned from their position before internal charges were laid by FIFA, then they could not be prosecuted or punished. Luckily the Swiss and US courts viewed the matter differently. FIFA has also since changed that rule.
Another anomaly is that FIFA like many Sports Associations based in Switzerland is classified as an Association. This means that they are not taxed like a normal company. A study in 2015 found that these Sporting Associations based in Switzerland indirectly generate around CHF1 billion annually to the Swiss economy. This was the study claimed because employees are taxed, and also because the 45 sporting bodies to receive these tax benefits are serviced by local companies.
In Australia there are many Sports bodies that are registered as ‘Not For Profit’ companies for similar reasons. There was talk several years ago that a review would be carried out on the proliferation of ‘Not For Profit’ organisations. One of the key issues being the amount of financial reserves some of these organisations held; as there used to be a limit as to how much money they could hold at any one time. If they exceeded that, then they lost their ‘Not For Profit’ Status.
It therefore came as no surprise that in 2018 when the left wing Social Democratic Party in Switzerland proposed that the Government make all entities with a turnover of more than CHF1 billion ($1 billion) pay standard corporate tax rates. They had FIFA very much in their sights, as in 2018, a World Cup Year, the money passing through FIFA tripled that benchmark.
Is this an area that Governments need to pay closer attention too? Should these sporting organisations be taxed at the same rate as normal businesses? After all are we not told regularly now that “sport is big business?” Surely you can’t have it both ways?
The hardest question of all has to be how can you change things? As we have seen with FIFA the whistleblowers have had to suffer great hardship for their honesty and integrity. Those who would not take bribes or sit by and watch others accept them have also had their lives changed, and all have kept a united silence. It takes great courage to stand up against perceived power in the shape of status and money. The ballot would appear to be the one place where change can be enforced. As each nation, state or club has a vote, they should use that vote to reflect the morals and integrity of those they represent.
That is of course far easier to say than to do especially when you accept funding from the International, regional or national federation. This was something that FIFA was very aware of, as was the man who replaced Sepp Blatter, Gianni Infantino. Why else in 2016 following his election would he promise to quadruple the money going to the Football Associations making up the FIFA electorate?
So how FIFA-esque is your sport?
Never forget if you have a vote at any level that can determine the governance in your sport maybe you need to return to “If” by Rudyard Kipling. Keep a copy in your pocket as it will act as a reminder as to what you should do. It will not be easy.
“If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:”
Is the end of the first segment. It goes on to state
“If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,”
If people can find the courage within and be prepared to use the power they have at whatever level of their sport to implement change then they will return their sport to the people who play it, watch it and love it. Finally with apologies to Kipling, with ‘sixty, eighty, or ninety minutes worth of distance run, Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it, And – which is more – you’ll be the Man/woman, who won!’
