Something’s Gotta Give

One thing that hopefully Australia has learned during this period in history is that too many tiers of Governance leads to confusion.

We have had our Federal Government make an announcement, but then the State Governments have made their own decisions or interpretations based on that announcement. Then in some cases local Government has done the same with the State Government’s announcement. Is it any wonder that people are confused?

So does the same apply in sport?

It does. Once again this period has shown how many sports are top heavy when it comes to management and governance. This has not led to confusion but to added costs that some sports clearly cannot afford. In some cases one has to ask whether these tiers of administration or governance are still necessary.

One area that should come under scrutiny are the International Sporting Confederations, that tend to make up Africa, Asia, Europe, Oceania and Pan America. Football has six confederations, with CONCACAF representing North and Central America and the Caribbean, and CONMEBOL covering South America,

FIFA was one of the first sports to truly embrace the Confederations. CONEMBOL was the oldest of the Confederations having been created in 1916. That year saw the first edition of the “Campeonato Sudamericano de Fútbol” (South-American Football Championship), which is now known universally as the “Copa América.” This was contested in Argentina to commemorate the centenary of the Argentine Declaration of Independence. The four nations competing Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay set up the body which was the initiative of Uruguayan Héctor Rivadavia Gómez.

In 1954 the Asian Football Confederation and Union of European Football were created. The Confederation of African Football was the next cab off the rank created in 1957. CONCACAF arrived in 1961, the result of a merger between the 1946 created North American Football Confederation and the 1938 formed Football Confederation of Central America and the Caribbean; in Spanish it was the Confederación Centroamericana y del Caribe de Fútbol (CCCF).

Other sports had a similar set up. In hockey the Oceania Hockey Federation is believed to have been formed in 1954. The Asian Hockey Federation was formed in 1958, The African Hockey Federation arrived in 1964. They were followed by the Pan American Federation along with the European Federation which were both founded in 1969.

In the 1960’s, when he became President of FIFA, Sir Stanley Rous pushed to develop the Confederations. Apart from having them as the representatives of their regions in a time when it was hard for Member nations to travel, he felt that it was vital that the world body transfer responsibility to these satellite offices. In his words it was “essential that FIFA decentralise rather than become a vast bureaucracy based in Europe and out of touch… and unsympathetic to the needs of other continents.” Oh how times have changed!

He also saw the Confederations as a vital buffer between the National Associations and FIFA. He was actually the man responsible for drafting the first statutes of UEFA in 1954. He also played a key role in the formation of CONCACAF and of Oceania.

He must have wondered what he had created by the time 1974 came around. For it was the Confederations that Joao Havelange used to oust Rous and become the first non-European head of FIFA.

Havelange, targeted Africa and Asia and promised to fund more development programs in these regions as well as expand the number of countries playing in a World Cup from 16 to 24. Ironically Rous had proposed the latter in 1970, but his proposal had been shot down!

The outcome of that 1974 FIFA Presidential election was an event that would have huge implications not only in football, but across many other sports who modelled their operations on the World Game.

Havelange continued to influence voting up until he stepped aside as FIFA President in 1998, with financial promises to those who supported him. His successor Sepp Blatter followed his mentor’s example. However by then the processes had become far cleverer. Now the Confederation heads did the bidding on behalf of the President-elect.

As we have been told since the Fall of FIFA the Confederation heads would obtain votes en bloc for the countries in in their region in return for funding from FIFA or IOC programs. Two of those to be banned by FIFA and to come out of the scandal very badly were AFC President Mohammed Bin Hammam and former President of CONCACAF Jack Warner.

They like all the Confederation Heads would be a part of the FIFA Executive Committee consisting of the President, elected by the Congress in the year following a FIFA World Cup, eight vice-presidents and 15 members, appointed by the confederations and associations, and one female member elected by the Congress. So those who supported them to support the President, often found that they too were looked after.

Despite the promised reforms by FIFA, in 2018 it was revealed that each of the elected representatives on its now 37-member council were paid USD$250,000 salaries, plus tens of thousands of dollars more in travel expenses. These payments were for a council that was scheduled to meet only three times a year.

The authorities famously swooped on FIFA and many of their Council and Executive Board were charged, but very little of the money was reclaimed.

How many other sports that followed the FIFA model now find themselves in a similar situation whereby Confederations are block voting for candidates or for the hosting rights of events? Their motives being the reward that their vote will bring.

Are some Confederation heads in some sports actually no longer representing the member National Associations that they were there to serve? Are they instead representing the World body, and doing the bidding on their behalf in return for a place at the top table and the perks that are associated to that?

Many of these Confederations receive funding from their World body. For example in the sport of Hockey it is believed that USD$1million a year is split between the five Confederations.

Where does that money go?

Could not many of the Member Associations set up a committee – they already have a place on the Board of their Confederation – to oversee the region that they belong to? Why is a seperate dedicated office required?

Coaching and development could be handled by each individual nation. The courses being set out by the World Body and appropriate trainers appointed to pass on that information in order to up-skill coaches.

Regional Tournaments such as Asian Cups, European Cup and Pan American Cups could all still take place, and should as they are a crucial part of many sports history and tradition. Many nations in these regions have expertise in running events so why couldn’t the nations assist each other and tap into that expertise to hold events throughout the region? Thereby each of the member nations would in fact supporting the other nations in their region and assisting in the growth and development of their sport in that region.

Using Asia as an example in hockey, India, Japan, Malaysia, Korea and Bangladesh have all hosted major events, so why couldn’t a panel be made up of those with the knowledge from those countries to help a country lacking that expertise to run a tournament?

In football the same applies, Australia, Japan, Korea, the United Arab Emirates and China along with other nations in the region have all hosted successful tournaments, why could they not work together to share that knowledge and help a nation without that know-how host a tournament?

When it comes to development monies and funding from the World Bodies, or the allocation of funding from the International Olympic Committee surely each nation should submit independently to that World body? This would avoid, as is the case in some sports, where the submission comes via the Confederation and the outcome could be influenced.

When it comes to qualification for World Cups and Olympic Games in many cases there is no reason to change the qualification process. However the question has to be asked whether the World Body wishes the tournament to be the best teams in the World competing, or the best teams from each region?

If it is to be the best teams in the world then in a situation such as football the top twenty teams in the World could be seeded. Regional preliminary qualifiers take place and then an agreed number of those teams from each region would join the top 20 teams in a draw for the qualifiers.

Teams could either play a straight knockout over two legs or in pools, as happens now. The end result being that 32 teams qualify for the World Cup Finals. Crucially they should be the best 32 teams at that point in time.

Some have said that television would not like this. If there were no teams from one region, that a television station would not buy the rights and fans would not watch. History will show that this is untrue. If the best teams in the World are playing, the chances are the fans will tune in.

Tournaments and how they are organised is something that is definitely going to come under the microscope when we come out the other side of this pandemic. Will the likes of Super Rugby and the FIH Pro League where there are teams criss-crossing the globe be able t continue, or will we return to more localised tournaments with less travel? Until that time we will have to wait and see. It may be that what has been put forward will be totally unfeasible.

In the meantime though many global sporting organisations are going to have to cut their coat according to their cloth. If money is now heavily reduced something has to give, and in the structural tiers that make up many sports the Confederations look to be the one area of Governance that could be eliminated with the minimum impact.

Yet like reform in Politics if the structure is benefitting those who have the power to make changes those changes are unlikely to eventuate. ,

Certainly the various National associations need to look at the best ways to protect their sports. Where can they safe money to safeguard its future? Hard questions need to be asked. Questions such as are the Confederations a buffer between the World Organisation and its members in a good way? Are they preventing change or are they simply cutting out issues that should never see the light of day? Have they become like a very good secretary that it is hard to get past when you want to talk to the boss? Are they truly representing their member nations, or are they representing the World body? Are they sympathetic to the needs of those under their umbrella, or to just a chosen few? Are they helping to develop and grow the game in their corner of the world?

The answers to these questions should help determine whether the Confederate tier of Governance is still revelant in this day and age. Whether it is still doing all that it was intended to do, and doing it well.

There is no doubt in many sports something has to give in order to ensure their financial survival. Removing tiers of governance and administration appears to be the most sensible way of reducing costs. It will be interesting to watch what each sport does, if anything, and the impact it will have on the sport as a whole.