There have been in recent weeks a number of elections across a number of sports, and as is often the way in any election the results have not pleased all.
Sport as we know stirs up passion, and when it comes to the administration or the overseeing of that administration by the various boards, emotions can takeover. Probably only two things stir up fans more, and those are inconsistent officiating and team selections, which will always raise the hackles of fans.
Although the phrase ‘never mix sport and politics’ is frequently used everybody knows that the two are intrinsically linked.
As we have seen with FIFA, and the International Olympic Committee, the “buying” of votes has been a regular occurrence. The same happens in so many sports and on so many levels it is not funny.
Such claims resurfaced in the past week in The Times newspaper where a former high-level boxing and taekwondo official Ho KIm from South Korea, alleged levels of corruption within both sports. Claims that were quickly dismissed by the IOC who according to The Guardian “described Kim as a long-time “persona non grata” within the movement and confirmed the South Korean official had not contacted the IOC ethics commission, or its integrity and compliance hotline, with his accusations.”
The Times spent four days interviewing Mr Ho Kim and claimed that he had documents supporting his claims.
The reason that Mr Kim has come forward now is he said to be because he has liver cancer, and unless a suitable donor is found his future looks to be short.
The IOC reportedly told The Times “Anybody who has good governance concerns with regard to IOC members is invited to contact the IOC ethics commission.”
Yet is it really any wonder that people no longer contact these internal ethics commissions in the various sports as few come out on the side of what is best for the sport when issues of governance are raised? They close ranks and turn a blind-eye to what has transpired. (If…)
There are examples in so many sports where this has been the case.
In November 2014 an 18 month investigation into the bidding process for the 2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cup finals by FIFA’s ethics committee ruled that any breaches of the rules were only of “very limited scope” and the Governing body closed its investigation into the controversial bidding process.
Former New York district attorney Michael Garcia who had been very bullish at the start of the investigation eventually announced that there was not sufficient evidence to justify stripping either Russia or Qatar of the 2018 or 2022 tournaments.
This was in spite of computers used by the Russian bid having been destroyed, and emails made unavailable to investigators. Very similar to the performance enhancing drugs investigation in the same country.
Hans-Joachim Eckert, the head of the adjudicatory arm of Fifa’s ethics committee concluded that Garcia did not find any direct link between the World Cup bid and illicit payments made by the disgraced former Asian Football Confederation president Mohamed bin Hammam, a Qatari who was banned for life for paying bribes during a campaign to unseat Sepp Blatter as FIFA president.
Yet various publications written later would tend to imply that this was not the case.
Even in local sport those with voting power are frequently given free tickets to events and hospitality. There is not necessarily an explanation that this is being offered to ‘oil any wheels’ but many understand that unless they vote a certain way these privileges will cease to be there; their standing within the game will not be as great. How many of these individuals declare these freebies and make them known to those who have entrusted them to vote on important issues?
Could one of the reasons why these ethics committees fail to uncover the truth is because the politics of the sport, and more importantly the money swirling around are so enmeshed?
Could it be because those investigating are often involved in the sport and lack independence?
As well as being the president of the Asian Football Confederation, Mohammed bin Hamman was also the chairman of the FIFA Goal Bureau, whose grants provide financial support for member associations across the world. Was the allocation of those funds used to leverage support and votes?
How many other sports have people holding positions in which they control funding to various nations? What checks and balances are in place to prevent funding for votes?
How many members of boards and executive boards properly declare their business links for all to see? We have seen many cases of Executive Board members having the companies they own sponsor a part of a sport. (Ripping up the Rules) Their support is obviously welcome, but the stakeholders, members and the paying public have a right to know the value of these agreements, as there is always the risk that they could have received a preferential deal that is well below the market value. If the company in question has nothing to hide, no doubt they will be willing to make that information public.
However the big issue here is should Executive Board members be involved in the handing out of funding? Should the members of the ethics committee be linked to the sport or should they be truly independent? When one looks at the make up of many of these committees across a number of sports it comes as no surprise that people do not come forward with allegations related to votes being “bought.” They know that they will never be given a fair hearing. That the risk to them is going to be far greater than those they are looking to expose.
So if votes are going to continue to be “bought,” and there is no come back via an ethics committee what other option is there for the various sports to ensure that they end up with the best and right outcomes?
If you cast your minds back to July 2000 when the bid for the 2006 FIFA World Cup was to be decided. South Africa was the favourite to become the first African nation to host the World Cup Finals. Oceania’s representative, Charlie Dempsey, who had been instructed by the region he represented to vote for South Africa abstained which eventually saw the competition being awarded to Germany instead of South Africa by one vote.
Dempsey explained his reason for abstaining by saying it was because of the “intolerable pressure” from supporters of the German and South African bids. He also claimed that attempts that had been made to bribe him. Despite these claims FIFA opted not to investigate and annul the vote.
It was not until 2016 that FIFA’s ethics watchdog announced that it had started formal proceedings against six individuals, including Franz Beckenbauer, over the awarding of hosting rights to Germany for the 2006 World Cup.
“In the cases of Mr Beckenbauer, Dr Zwanziger, Mr Schmidt and Mr Hans, the investigatory chamber will investigate possible undue payments and contracts to gain an advantage in the 2006 FIFA World Cup host selection and the associated funding,” the investigatory chamber of FIFA’s ethics committee said in a statement.
German great Franz Beckenbauer denied any knowledge of a multi-million dollar payment of 10 million Swiss francs made in 2002 via a Swiss law firm’s account to a company owned by then FIFA official Mohamed Bin Hammam, the former president of the Asian Football Confederation.
By the time this announcement was made Charlie Dempsey had passed away. So he was not able to lend any weight to his claims from the year 2000.
In April 2020 the Swiss trial of four officials linked to the 2006 FIFA World Cup ended without a verdict after the five-year statute of limitations passed. Franz Beckenbauer, who had been at the forefront of Germany’s bid for the 2006 World Cup and was chairman of the Organising Committee, was under investigation but was never charged owing to his health, according to the Office of the Attorney General.
It was reported that the trial had been delayed by the coronavirus pandemic. As a result too much time had now elapsed to secure a conviction. Which to many appears very convenient, even if it is the law. So it appears as if something is being done, but ultimately nothing was done.
To add fuel to the fire Swiss Attorney General Michael Lauber has been criticised for his handling of football corruption cases and was sanctioned for breaching his office’s code of conduct. He has also been put under further pressure after it emerged he held undocumented meetings with the new FIFA President Gianni Infantino.
Going back to the day of the vote had Dempsey voted for Germany the chances are no one would ever have known. With 24 votes available, and only 23 cast it was clear that one of the voters had abstained. Had he not abstained the reason he may not have been discovered is that most of the voting over such important issues in sport are done by secret ballot.
Is it time that this changed? Especially with the post covid virtual elections?
As with the case of Charlie Dempsey should Oceania have been able to see straight away that their representative had opted not vote?
The various representatives that are given votes on important outcomes in International sport have been elected to hold that position, and are often given that role because they are trusted to do what their members have asked them to do. So is it not right that those members be given access to see that they followed those wishes?
One problem here is that in many sports the information from these International representatives does not filter back down to those they represent. In many cases it will be shared with the National board, and that is where it stops. However, surely every player who pays a registration fee to play that sport has a right to know what issues are being discussed, and how their National Association is going to vote, or request their Confederation representative to vote?
What is frightening in some cases is how few of the Board members actually follow the machinations of the sport that they are being trusted to oversee. This may well be why that information is not shared, because they simply are not across it.If that is truly the case then are they the right people, and are they in a position to make an informed decision?
As covered previously (Something’s Gotta GIve) the reason the Confederations were created appears now to be no longer relevant. However there is still a place for them, but should those at the helm of the Confederations be given voting rights today?
Once again, FIFA has used its youth tournaments to secure votes from various Confederations. So there was an incentive placed in front of either countries or confederations to vote a certain way. They may not host the major tournament, but they would still be given a slice of the FIFA pie with one of the under age tournaments.
As we have seen with FIFA, by having the Confederations vote en bloc, an election can be determined very quickly. Not surprisingly other sports have been quick to recognise this fact and we are seeing individuals in the regions wielding vast amounts of power and influence. Both of which can ultimately be detrimental to the sport as a whole.
If each vote were made public, would this transparency benefit the sport and help cut out such influence?
Surely there is no reason today with the technology available to open such voting up for all to see. Let us see for whom or which nation those representing us, the paying public, are voting for. If they fail to do what was asked of them then they run the risk of not being elected again.
If those at the top cannot be trusted to act as instructed, and not try to influence other voters then sport must start to be governed by those who play and support it. These people want transparency, they want a change from the way things have been done in the past. They want to know that the Ethics committee is truly independent, and those on it are ethical, and can be trusted. They want conflicts of interest declared, and on the record for all to see.
Seeing how each national representative votes, would that not be a step in the right direction?
Will any sport be brave enough to take this step? Will any stakeholders be bold enough to propose such a move?
