Editor’s note: The full background story of the highly-controversial Qatari bid for the 2022 World Cup will be examined in a future article for The Dark Side.
The process surrounding the bids for the right to host the 2018 and 2022 World Cups have been shrouded in controversy ever since Russia and Qatar were named as the winning bidders back in December of 2010. Allegations of bribery, improper benefits, and “vote-buying” have swirled around both bids – evidence of corruption that would only further undermine FIFA’s already tarnished credibility and integrity under the presidency of Sepp Blatter. In mid-2012, the talk surrounding the allegations reached such fever pitch that FIFA and Blatter simply had to respond. Former U.S. Attorney Michael J. Garcia was appointed to head an ethics committee investigation into the bidding process.
After an 18-month probe, it was announced in September of this year that Garcia’s findings would not be released to the public, with FIFA citing that it was legally bound to keep the report confidential (this in spite of calls by Garcia and other FIFA officials and representatives for more transparency in the process). Garcia also mentioned during a speech in London that FIFA was lacking leadership that could properly address his findings and establish a culture of transparency at the top level of the sport, a thinly-veiled criticism of Blatter and the monolithic FIFA Executive Committee.
The key points of Garcia’s inquiry were summarized by FIFA’s ethics judge Hans-Joachim Eckert at a press conference last week, and chief amongst them were the following:
- The report cleared Russia and Qatar’s bids, but was especially critical of England’s 2018 bid, saying the English FA’s bidding team had “damaged the integrity of the ongoing bidding process.”
- Rule violations by Qatar, Russia and England were of a “limited scope” and did not warrant revisiting or reopening the voting process.
- Mohamed bin Hammam, since banned for life from FIFA, was affiliated but not directly connected with the Qatari bid committee.
- Russia’s bid team was criticized for not furnishing all relevant documentation to Garcia’s team, as the computers storing the documents had been disposed of.
- The joint Spain-Portugal bid for 2018 was deemed as uncooperative to the investigation.
- Australia’s 2022 bid was called into question over allegations of attempts to provide benefits to gain the backing of CONCACAF’s Jack Warner and Oceania’s Reynald Temarii, including promises of funding for development projects.
Full text of Eckert’s statement can be found here via FIFA.com. (.PDF file)
The Next Twist: “That’s not what I said….”
On November 13th, it appeared that both Russia and Qatar had been cleared and indeed following Eckert’s statement, to the point where he declared that any inquiry into the bidding process was declared closed. However, the story does not end so easily. Garcia released the following statement the very same day:
“Today’s decision by the chairman of the adjudicatory chamber contains numerous materially incomplete and erroneous representations of the facts and conclusions detailed in the investigatory chamber’s report.”
There have been calls for ethics and legal analysts suggesting that Garcia should either resign as a matter of principle, or release the findings on his own. The FIFA Appeals Committee has confirmed that Garcia has submitted a formal appeal against the closing of the case against Russia and Qatar.
The division is clear: on one side is Garcia, who has publically declared that the presentation and summary of the findings were inaccurate, and on the other side is Eckert, who has spoken as the head of the FIFA Ethics Committee to say “case closed.” A meeting between the two has been announced for later this week.
Meanwhile, FIFA today announced that Swiss authorities were going to be notified of criminal charges that were going to be brought against individuals involved with the bidding process. No names have been linked to this announcement yet, and it remains to be seen whether this step is just window-dressing by Blatter to show the world that FIFA will be taking action of some sort.
EDITORIAL COMMENT: If it seems to make little sense that FIFA would issue a report about a report, and then proceed to talk about criminal charges against individuals involved with the bidding process while saying the bidding process outcome will remain as it stands, that’s because it makes extremely little sense.
Garcia needs to release this report, whether it will be done by his own hand or through FIFA. Whether or not there are reasons for Blatter, Eckert, and the rest of FIFA’s leadership to dread Garcia’s report remains to be seen, but the secrecy surrounding the findings and the haste in declaring “case closed” suggest a cover-up, with the criminal allegations a step to paper over the cracks.
In a time when the sport’s governing body is being called upon to demonstrate more transparency, it appears that Blatter has the impression that a pithy legal step will show the world how serious FIFA is getting about stamping out the corruption that has become less and less of a dark secret within the organization. This type of disconnect will only serve to open FIFA up to more of an attitude of entitlement at its top levels, as officials are given opportunities to get away with unethical behavior.
In its position as “guardians of the gate” over the world’s most popular sport, FIFA’s inability to both act with transparency and to revamp its archaic structure and process are emblematic of mismanagement from the top down. Blatter has unashamedly turned the Executive Committee into his own private serfdom, and has demonstrated time and again that he is far more interested in the business of football than football itself.
This story is far from over, but as long as the current generation of leadership remains in place, it is also likely that very little will be changed. A bleak outlook, perhaps, but the type of reform necessary requires either such radical action as to completely destabilize the organization of the sport everywhere or a length of time where the pace of change will be slow and gradual.
(Featured image: AP Photo/Walter Bieri)
Comments are closed.