It was in December 2015 that the sporting world woke up to hear that law enforcement authorities had swooped and arrested many of the top officials in FIFA. Charges were laid against 18 individuals from 12 different countries. Those arrested did not see the authorities coming, as one wag said at the time the reason for this was that their snouts were so deep in the trough.
To many involved in football, the arrests came as a shock as they had resigned themselves to the fact that these people had been abusing their privileges and their positions for so long it appeared that no one was going to stand up to them.
For fans that feeling of resignation went back to July 2000, when the host for the 2006 FIFA World Cup was announced. Everyone expected the name to be read out to be that of South Africa. England and Morocco had been eliminated in the earlier ballots leaving the race between Germany and South Africa. The European nation would claim 12 votes, South Africa received 11. There was one abstention.
After the vote it was claimed that there were death threats, hoax bribes, and a delegate changing his mind at the last minute which all contributed to Germany’s success. Oceania’s Charlie Dempsey was the man to abstain. At the eleventh hour, Mr Dempsey decided to abstain in the critical vote rather than support South Africa which was what the federation he was representing had instructed him to do.
He would claim that he was subjected to death threats, and had to endure “unsustainable pressure” through a series of telephone calls to his hotel room.He also claimed that he was offered bribes. The aftermath of his abstention was huge and in the end it became too much to bear. He resigned his position in September 2000. He never wrote an autobiography or ever spoke at length about what happened, and the truth went with him to the grave in 2008 when he passed away.
Investigative journalist Andrew Jennings, who authored The Dirty Game: Uncovering the Scandal at FIFA, alleged in the book that Dempsey was paid US$250,000 not to vote for South Africa, thereby awarding the tournament to Germany. In 2015 former German football federation president Theo Zwanziger provided the German newspaper Bild with a Swiss court document, which he believed showed that US$250,000 (NZ$398,000) was paid to Dempsey on the eve of the crucial vote. The document in question came from the trial of executives from collapsed Swiss sports marketing company ISL. It was reported by German news outlet Deutsche Welle that Dempsey was not named on the document, but that the money was transferred to an anonymous person referred to as “E16”. Zwanziger believed that “E16” was Dempsey.
German and wold football icon Franz Beckenbauer was head of the 2006 Germany bid to host the world cup, and he too would become embroiled in the scandal. First of all in In June 2014 the FIFA Ethics Committee banned him for 90 days from any football-related activity for allegedly refusing to cooperate with an inquiry into corruption dealing with the allocation of the 2018 and 2022 World Cups to Russia and Qatar. The ban was lifted and he agreed to co-operate.
In March 2016, the Ethics Committee opened formal proceedings against Beckenbauer regarding the awarding of the 2006 FIFA World Cup. Then in October 2019 documents were published claiming that he and his adviser, Fedor Radmann had received payments from Russia following their successful bid to host the 2018 World Cup. Despite charges being outstanding it is believed that Beckenbauer’s ill health will mean that the investigation will never be completed.
Many hoped that FIFA would learn from these situations and would adopt a more transparent way of operating. The public demanded it. Yet disappointing when Sepp Blatter was forced out of the position as President of FIFA his replacement Gianni Infantino failed to listen to the cries of the fans globally and initiate reform. In fact he too has been embroiled in accusations of wrong-doing and some of the accusations levelled at him have not been investigated. Many who supported Infantino have since come out and stated how disappointed they have been in him not fulfilling his promises regarding transparency, democracy and governance.
One would think that in the competitive world of international sport, where money has taken precedence over competition and greed is rife, those sports that want to steal a march on their competitors would give the sporting public what they want, which is transparency.
Yet following the announcement of a government inquiry into Rugby Australia in 2017 over a lack of transparency, the Governing body was quick to defend its integrity. Was it any surprise that those at the top and on the board were all quick to claim that there was no need for such an inquiry?
The report when published made eight recommendations to strengthen the accountability of Rugby Australia and called on the Australian Sports Commission to adopt new principles on player welfare. The report found that Rugby Australia had given the new owners of the Melbourne Rebels a “deal of a lifetime.” The Board did not come out of the inquiry well, yet the members of the Board stubbornly refused to accept the findings or the feelings of the fans and players who waited for heads to roll or resignations to be announced. (The Game They Play in Heaven Relegated to Hell)
More recently in Hockey in Australia we have seen another investigation carried out independently. The parts of this report that have been published for public consumption again do not reflect well on the Board. The board like rugby stated that there was no need for an investigation in the first place. Once again there have been no administrative heads roll only those of coaching staff, there have been no resignations from the board. The hockey public are still waiting…
Once again one has to ask if these people are in touch with the prevailing mood of those they represent? Rugby Australia wasn’t.
With rising participation costs for individual players and their children, as well as rising costs for the clubs that give various sports people the opportunity to play week-in-week out the public and those running the clubs understandably want more of a say, and more transparency.
Football went through the motions following the recommendations of the Crawford report and set up standing committees and Zone Reps who were supposed to be a voice for the clubs and those playing for the clubs, but it has not worked. It has not worked for many reasons but primarily because the line of communication is not working. Many Zone reps are not in touch with all the clubs in their zone and few give those clubs an update on what is happening. (The Most Important Day in Football In WA in Recent Times) As one former administrator in the West stated, ‘it is not in our interest for this system to work.’ If that is the view from those paid to run the game what hope is there for those who volunteer their time?
Incredibly the amendments to the Football West Constitution 10.12 which were inserted in order to accomodate the then Chairman staying on the board beyond the terms stated in the constitution are still in the constitution which was amended on 30 March 2017! Why have the subsequent Boards not seen to bring this up to date? The National Premier League sides which play in the highest competition, have a standing committee, but constitutionally still have no voting rights at an AGM, even though the league commenced in 2014.
There are many good well-intentioned people who take on such roles in sport, because they care and they want to take their game forward. Regrettably far too many once involved see the stubbornness of the administrators who are not open to change and are deaf to the real problems facing clubs and players. Some will even witness at first hand corruption, favouritism and gross conflicts of interest. The view being it is OK for those at the top so why not us? After a period of not being able to deliver, they become disheartened, they despair and they walk away. Many walk away not just from the committee that they were on but from the sport completely. That lack of good governance that lack of transparency in the end breaking them and their passion for the sport.
This need for transparency in sport is becoming far greater than many of those at the top realise. Yet they ignore it at their peril.The trust that existed forty years ago has been eroded, not necessarily by some of those holding positions today, but by those who have gone before.
It is interesting to note that when the Confederations were created by FIFA in the 1960’s the paper stated prophetically “Members of the Executive Committees of Confederations are certainly in a position to have a profound effect on the development of football.” As we saw with the arrests in 2015, this proved to be so and sadly not for the good of the sport. Other sports adopted a similar structure to FIFA and many are today questioning whether these are still acting in the best interests of those that they represent. One area where this question is raised is when it comes to voting, as frequently like party politics the member nations of Confederations all vote en bloc, rather than necessarily what is best for them.
Another point raised in that FIFA document written by Sir Stanley Rous reads as follows:
“The financial resources of FIFA and of Confederations should be utilised for practical purposes connected with the development of the game, as little as possible being spent on Committees and other meetings. Small ‘sub-committees’ and working parties could undertake more of the routine work at much less cost.
Co-operation and progress will only be achieved if Confederations regard it as their responsibility to provide all who wish to play football in all countries in their areas and to ensure that the game is never used for any but sporting purposes.” How many sports live up to that ideal today?
At the weekend the International Hockey Federation held its Congress; on-line for the first time ever due to the Pandemic. There were two candidates running for the Presidency. The incumbent, Dr Narinder Batra from India was voted back into office by the smallest of margins 63 votes to the 61. In such a close election there were understandably people who were upset with the result, as was evident on social media.
There were calls for the votes to be made public. Constitutionally such a request cannot be made, for the statues state that it is a secret ballot. Yet judging by the strength of opinion maybe this needs to change in the future. Of course if the hockey community wished that to change they would have to have the statutes changed before the next Congress. That is unlikely to happen as those who vote for such a change would be the ones whose vote would then become public knowledge.
Yet as was raised when Rugby Australia finally elected a new board, the clubs around the country asked why they had no say in the appointment, after all they are the members of Rugby Australia. The CEO’s or Presidents of each state are the ones who ultimately vote in such elections, yet how many of them canvas those that they represent and ask who they want them to vote for? Do they take it upon themselves to decide, or do they ask who those they represent want them to vote for? By consulting with the stakeholders there is far less opportunity of a representative being induced to vote the opposite way to which those they represent want.
When one looks at the Charlie Dempsey situation back in 2000 one has to say that an open and transparent voting system where each member nation’s vote is accounted for would be a way to reduce corruption. It would also be a way for those in each country to find out if their representatives did what was asked of them. If they didn’t, it may be too late in that election, but they will not last long in their post in their home country. Like Charlie Dempsey they will be forced to step aside.
The way things are may well be the way they have been for decades, but the world is changing. Trust has been eroded by our political leaders and also sadly many of our sporting leaders; FIFA’s executive Committee being one main reasons for the lack of trust. If the sporting world wants to regain that trust, and wants fans and players to buy into the path that these elected members choose for their sport, the only way that they will achieve their objectives smoothly is by changing. Accepting that the public, those who play the game around the world, and the clubs that give them that opportunity have a right to expect transparency.
At the end of the day what is there to hide?
