Mondial

What next for Asian football? Lessons from the AFC Congress

Sun, 19 May 2013 22:24:00 +0100

The dust has settled, the stories have been filed (read my in depth take on the AFC election in the next issue of The Blizzard, which is due out the first week in June), the jetlag over. So what did a few days in Malaysia earlier this month - at the AFC Congress and the confederation’s elections - tell us about the state of Asian football, and football politics?

1/ Anything goes if you’re not Mohamed Bin Hammam (or one of his friends)

Serious and unresolved questions remain about Sheikh Salman’s alleged role in human rights violations in his native Bahrain. Salman has stopped short of an outright denial, merely calling on his critics to provide proof and blandly saying he has violated no statutes. (Actually, if the allegations are true he’s violated all manner of FIFA and AFC statutes). Remarkably - no, unbelievably - this was scarcely an issue in the election. Yousuf al-Serkal, who has never faced any allegations of impropriety but is a personal friend of Mohamed Bin Hammam, was seen as the man who needed to be stopped because of his links to the Qatari.

Observers, who frankly should have known better, suggested that it was okay to overlook these alleged transgressions because the Bahraini wasn’t linked with the tainted Bin Hammam and would be a bulwark against Qatari dominance in Asian football. Maybe there’s a case for this, but such a blinkered outlook reveals all that is wrong and myopic in global football governance.

Bin Hammam was accused of a lot of things in his time, but human rights violations was never one of them.

2/ Blatter may go on and on

Much has been read into the FIFA president’s Freudian slip when he told Congress with a laugh “This is the last term, not of office, but of reform.” It was meant to be a barb at Michel Platini (who had gone home at that stage), it was meant to be a testing of the water, it was meant to be so many things.

Actually what had happened was more prosaic. An old man dropped his prompt cards, didn’t recover and went hopelessly off message. Blatter was digressing wildly through his address to the AFC Congress, like an eccentric, slightly tipsy old uncle at a family wedding. I’m sure his advisors despaired.

Afterwards the press got no more than a muttered sentence in the whirlwind that encircled him (oddly, given that his silence was supposed to be due to political sensitivity ahead of a crucial FIFA Congress, he found time to give an interview to L’Equipe on his return to Europe).

I hadn’t seen Blatter in the flesh since 2011. At 77 he seemed slightly more stooped, but he was still the same old Sepp; cunning, ebullient, sly. I’ve always maintained the mantra that we should expect anything from the old man, and I wouldn’t rule out another run at the presidency in two years time.

3/ This wasn’t about football

I don’t recall any of the presidential candidates actually talking about the game itself. When my colleague, Mani Djzami, asked the victorious Sheikh Salman who the current Asian Champions League holders were, there was an agonising silence… before he came out with the right answer. (To our surprise, it must be said). Indeed the closest notion that we had that anyone was really interested in football was the sight of exhausted electoral teams, who’d sat up through the night to watch the Champions League semi finals.

But this wasn’t about football. It was about regional West Asian rivalries, expunging the ghost of Bin Hammam and power for the sake of power.

4/ Where were the footballers?

Do any Asian footballers (or at least former players) have any significant say in the running of their confederation? It’s an accusation commonly levelled at governing bodies, but elsewhere in the world you do have some notion that footballers are represented. Here we had Michel Platini and Angel Maria Villar Llona representing UEFA. Bora Milutunovic was part of the huge Qatari delegation. But where were the Asian players? The AFC vice president, Moya Dodd, who played for Australia’s Matildas, was the only one that I encountered. Surely the AFC should be seeking greater player representation?

5/ Asian football isn’t a hopeless case

There was much to be cynical about, but also some hope. For some delegates, who lack proper democracy in their own countries, this was clearly the closest they get to electoral politics and they were relishing their moment. There were others for whom this was just a gravy train.

But there were also plenty of very talented, very committed people there, who love football and want to see the game develop and improve. People who worked for the candidates, people who represent federations, AFC staffers, AFC exco members, people with aspirations for a seat on the FIFA Exco; all left a positive impression.

Football politics is changing rapidly. There are still worms in the fruit, but it is no longer rotten to the core. A new generation is emerging, for whom the nepotism, cynicism and corruption we once witnessed in abundance will hopefully be anathema.

Crisis in Indonesian football

Sun, 19 May 2013 16:59:19 +0100

Crisis in Indonesian football:

Indonesian football finds itself in disarray once more, with bitter divisions between a breakaway reform movement and the country’s federation undermining the game. The world’s fourth most populated country is ranked 170 in FIFA’s rankings, yet on a visit to Jakarta for BBC World Football I found the potential in a football-mad country all too abundant. (Source: BBC World Service)

Four More Years? Blatter Hints at Standing Again for FIFA Presidency

Sun, 19 May 2013 16:52:12 +0100

Four More Years? Blatter Hints at Standing Again for FIFA Presidency:

FIFA president Sepp Blatter has given another clear indication that he plans to continue as FIFA boss beyond the end of his current term. James Corbett reports from the AFC Congress in Kuala Lumpur. (Source: Worldfootballinsider.com)

New AFC President Throws Down Gauntlet on Human Rights Allegations

Sun, 19 May 2013 16:52:07 +0100

New AFC President Throws Down Gauntlet on Human Rights Allegations:

New AFC president Sheikh Salman bin Ebrahim Al Khalifa has issued a challenge about accusations over alleged human rights violations in his native Bahrain. James Corbett reports from Kuala Lumpur. (Source Worldfootballinsider.com)

Sheikh Salman Elected New President of Asian Football Confederation

Sun, 19 May 2013 16:51:58 +0100

Sheikh Salman Elected New President of Asian Football Confederation:

Bahrain’s Sheikh Salman bin Ebrahim Al Khalifa has won elections to be new president of the Asian Football Confederation, following an overwhelming first round victory in Kuala Lumpur. (Source: Worldfootballinsider.com)

Sheikh Salman "Not Fit" to Lead AFC Blasts Rival

Sun, 19 May 2013 16:39:10 +0100

Sheikh Salman "Not Fit" to Lead AFC Blasts Rival:

AFC presidential candidate Yousuf al-Serkal says that his rival Sheikh Salman is ‘not fit’ to lead the confederation following allegations about human rights abuses in his native Bahrain. Plus a preview of the AFC elections, on the scene in Kuala Lumpur

Fearless reporter defies ex-FIFA man's bully boy tactics

Fri, 22 Mar 2013 10:22:00 +0000

A leading sports journalist has refused to be silenced by disgraced former FIFA vice president Jack Warner, saying attempts to silence him are a ‘waste of court time.’

Trinidadian journalist Lasana Liburd, a respected contributor to local and international media and who sits on the voting panel for the World Footballer of the Year, is being sued by Warner for libel after posting a tweet relating to the alleged misappropriation of relief money to the Haiti earthquake.

Relief money worth $690,000 donated by FIFA and its former vice president Chung Mong-joon via CONCACAF – then led by Warner – in 2010 has never been accounted for.

Following publication of revelations last year in the Sunday Times, Liburd published a tweet relating to the story prompting a furious response from Warner.

Warner was approached by Liburd prior to publication but allegedly never responded to requests for clarification.

‘I believe that I can prove the story was fair based on the information gathered, the tweet was merely a link to the unchallenged substantive story and that, in any case, the Claimant does not have a reputation of any value in terms of his FIFA dealings and financial trustworthiness,’ said Liburd via email.

‘It is also worth noting that the Claimant is suing over a tweet that was long since deleted while FIFA’s scrutiny of his defence, regarding his use of the Haiti aid money, did not uphold his claims of innocence.’

Background

In January 2010 a devastating earthquake struck the Caribbean island of Haiti, killing an estimated 220,000 people and injuring 300,000 more. It destroyed what little infrastructure existed in a country that sits 145th of 169 countries in the UN Human Development Index, which is the lowest in the Western Hemisphere

The fate of the country’s football federation (FHF) represented a sobering microcosm of the calamity that befell the island. Its headquarters were completely destroyed, killing 30 staff. One of only two people to survive was its federation president Yves Jean Bart.

World football responded swiftly to look after its ‘own’. FIFA immediately donated $250,000 of emergency relief funds and the former FIFA vice president Chung Mong-joon a further $500,000. At the request of Jack Warner, then president of football’s North American confederation, CONCACAF, who was leading the football relief effort, the money was paid into bank accounts in his native Trinidad in order to immediately provide support to Haiti. Warner was photographed in Haiti a week after the quake handing out bottled water to survivors.

But two years later only $60,000 of that $750,000 had been received by the FHF.

In February 2012, the Sunday Times exposed how $690,000 of the aid money had gone missing and how FIFA stopped payments to the Trinidad and Tobago Football Federation as a result. I was part of the Insight team that uncovered this financial misappropriation and although Warner denied the allegations (and his friends made some bizarre smears against me) no evidence was provided then – or subsequently – that the money ever reached its destination.

FIFA later claimed to have further information about the case, but it no longer has any jurisdiction over Warner and my understanding is that no more money has reached the desperately impoverished island.

For everyone else but the poor Haitians the story ends here. If the Sunday Times had libelled Warner he may have sought recourse in a British court and probably added to his considerable – and often nefariously acquired – wealth. But Warner was powerless to do anything about our story because it was true, correct and completely watertight, something reflected in the fact that it went global immediately after publication.

Quagmire

But in his native Trinidad something else was afoot. Instead of the Sunday Times, Warner moved to sue Liburd, for allegedly libelling him in a tweet about the story.

The case was – and remains – preposterous.

- A libel presupposes someone has a reputation worth defending; whereas Warner’s is a global byword for FIFA corruption.

- If the story was untrue, where is the evidence that contradicts it?

-Why did Warner ignore reasonable requests for comment?

- Why Liburd and not the Sunday Times?

The answer probably lies in the last question.

Liburd, whose elegant and richly-sourced journalism follows a fine Trinidadian tradition set by the likes of C. L. R. James, has for years been a thorn in the side of the former FIFA vice president. He has helped uncover a myriad of Warner-related scandals and attempts have in the past been made (and rejected) to ban him from FIFA events. To those outside the island it looks like a clear case of editorial intimidation.

And yet, 13 months on, the attempts to intimidate and silence go on.

‘The legal team for either side believes this case can be settled outside of court,’ explained Liburd.

‘I am being generous when I say ‘legal team for either side’ as I am representing myself.

‘An uncontested report carried in a local paper suggested that Warner’s legal team benefited from State contracts during his time as Minister of Works. So, if my family and I as taxpayers are helping enrich one set of lawyers already attached to the case, then why hire a second batch of lawyers?

‘I am happy to have my say in court regarding Warner’s relationship with other people’s money and his humanitarian work while CONCACAF and Caribbean Football Union president. In the current local climate, I feel that it is a waste of the court’s time bearing in mind the worrying and recurring allegations regarding one or more members of Mr Warner’s family in the local media.

‘I am a reporter and I report what I see.’

FIFA fails the first reform test

Thu, 21 Mar 2013 21:29:00 +0000

Two months out from a FIFA Congress in which the organisation’s reform roadmap will be voted upon, a less than convincing press conference by its president Sepp Blatter and Exco member Theo Zwanziger betrayed the likelihood that hopes for ambitious change so sorely needed are unlikely to be realised.

The press conference followed FIFA’s quarterly executive committee meeting in Zurich. Here it discussed the final batch of reforms to be put to a vote at the May 30 Congress in Mauritius.

These were, as reported by World Football Insider:

- to decide whether there should be term and age limits for both president and ExCo members

- FIFA Exco to shortlist future World Cup candidates, with Congress to vote on the winner

- Whether Britain should lose right vice president position on ExCo; the seat would go to UEFA

- Proposal to expand FIFA ExCo to 27 members to include three women. Four candidates are vying to become the first female member elected at the congress; two others would be co-opted for “at least a year”, Blatter said.

- The names of candidates for the judicial bodies (disciplinary Committee, appeal committee and ethics committee), the audit and compliance committee

This is all fine and good, but let’s contrast these with the seven recommendations that were put forward by the Independent Governance Committee in its first report in March last year and reiterated last month:

1/ That the President and all Members of the ExCo as well as the standing committee of FIFA to undergo integrity check performed by an independent body within FIFA centrally prior to their (re-) election.

Fail: There was no mention of this today. (Unless you count the confederations who will now conduct such checks - which is not quite the same thing.)

2/ In order to underline their role and responsibility as Members of the FIFA’s Executive Body the Members of the ExCo should be confirmed by Congress upon their appointment or reappointment by the Confederations.

Fail: There was no mention of this today.

3/ In order to guarantee transparency and accountability two independent Members should attend the meetings of the ExCo.

Major fail: Theo Zwanziger, who chairs the standing committee on FIFA reform and is normally one of the more transparent Exco members, gave an excrutiating explanation as to why the FIFA Exco may be better served NOT having two independent members. So, another fail.

4/ Both, the President and the Members of ExCo should be Subjected to limited terms of office.

Success: This will be debated at FIFA Congress, but there was no mention of whether it would apply to the president.

5/ The IGC supports the redesign of the bidding process for hosting decisions and decision, as well as for the governance of development projects, marketing and procurement activities. The corresponding policies need to be reviewed by the IGC.

Possible success: The World Cup bidding process will revert to FIFA Congress, but with them deciding on one of three candidates previously approved by the FIFA Exco. This is all fine and good and similar to the Olympic process, but without non-subjective criteria in place it is no more transparent than before. Indeed it may be less so.

6/ The IGC welcomes any steps to make the IFAB more democratic and transparent.

Fail: There was no mention of this today.

7/ The IGC would like to stress the importance of transparency in the area of compensation and benefits. The establishment of an expert subcommittee to the Audit and Compliance Committee is an important step. However, the decisions of the sub-committee need to be made public, to the same degree as in not-for-profit organizations and other international organizations.

Fail: There was no mention of this today.

So, 1.5/7 – and that’s before it even gets to the bearpit of FIFA Congress.

Unexpected proposals put forward today were that two extra women be co-opted onto the FIFA Exco. (There was no word on whether they’ll be made to wear sexy kit to make their presence more edifying to some of the dinosaurs that sit on it). This proposal does beg the question that if there are three members representing women’s football – which is in many respects much needed and very worthy – why then are there just four people representing Asia, which possesses nearly half the world’s population? Why no room for just two independent Exco members? Why just four African Exco members?

But this was a side issue.

In truth it was clear even last Autumn that the reforms of the Independent Governance Committee, chaired by Swiss Law Professor Mark Pieth, were doomed to failure. Whether this was a well intentioned exercise or merely one to obfuscate and buy Blatter an extra two years in his job we’ll probably never know. But FIFA never ceases to disappoint and this was a bad day.

The nadir of today’s performance was probably seeing Blatter and Zwanziger have rings run around them by the Swiss reporter Jean-Francois Tanda, who asked about the IGC’s seven recommendations and whether Mark Pieth had resigned his role.

‘You just want to make a statement, don’t you want to listen?’ snapped the German after Blatter passed the question over.

‘Our reform process is on a good track,’ Blatter concluded, claiming a consensus within the Exco rested in favour of reform. ‘But it is up to the congress to make the final decisions.’

It turned out later that Pieth will see out his final two months in his role as FIFA advisor. What remains of proposals at the end of that period we shall await with interest, but with low expectations.

ps. A week after Britain’s paper of record, The Times, was duped in its Qatar Fantasy Football League story, with a single exception no British newspapers or broadcasters were represented in Zurich today. Are we heading for a new age of British isolationism, or have sports desks just got their priorities badly wrong?

High farce in the Maghreb

Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:09:23 +0000

Less than three years after the continent’s first World Cup, CAF has become a laughing stock.

In football’s so-called twittersphere, there could be few more depressing places than my timeline over the weekend, as the grim reality of Everton’s abysmal FA Cup capitulation to Wigan hit home. But from Marrakech, where the CAF Congress was taking place, the tweets from assorted delegates, notably the distinguished African football journalist, Osasu Obayiuwana, made for equally grim reading. Everton at least have next season. An entire continent has to live with the consequences of this weekend’s events for at least four years.

What happened in Marrakech was less a football congress, than a parody of such an event. If a comedian was going to satirise the worst excesses of football’s governors he would struggle to match what CAF came up with at the weekend.

The prelude to the congress was an increasingly bitter battle between the CAF president Issa Hayatou and the FIFA Exco member Jacques Anouma, who vied for his position, but was prevented from standing by a change in the CAF statutes. Shed no tears for Anouma – an associate of the Ivorian dictator, Laurent Gbagbo, now incarcerated by the international criminal court in The Hague on charges of crimes against humanity – but the methods used to prevent him from challenging Hayatou were dubious to say the least.

A change in the CAF statutes last year prevent anyone from standing for the CAF presidency who is not on the organisation’s 18 member executive committee. (By contrast anyone on the planet can stand for the FIFA presidency with the backing of a national association). Anouma does sit on the CAF exco, but as one of its 3 ex-officio members, which according to CAF are ineligible from standing for the presidency (thus reducing the electoral field to 15). The Ivorian took his appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which on the eve of the CAF Congress ruled against him.

The presidential vote thus became a coronation. “Hayatou does not look like a prince but like a King,” said Sepp Blatter at the Congress. Which king he was comparing him to we do not know; possibly Richard III or Herod The Great.

If that seemed ridiculous, proceedings soon descended into farce. In October 2010, Mali’s Amadou Diakite was implicated in the Sunday Times’ World Cup bid investigation, earning global notoriety (unlike Nigeria’s Amos Adamu he did not ask for bribes) and received a two year FIFA ban. He returned to the CAF Exco, while Benin’s Moucharafou Anjorin was also elected.

Anjorin is no stranger to controversy as Obayiuwana reports:

Anjorin has also been in the thick of legal turmoil in his home country, after allegations of financial impropriety, over missing sponsorship funds, led to his initial removal as president of the Benin Football Federation (FBF) following a vote of no confidence three years ago. He subsequently spent several months in a Benin prison, after which he was released and restored to his position, after FIFA threatened Benin with a ban, for political interference, in the affairs of the federation.

But what of Danny Jordaan, architect of South Africa’s World Cup and arguably the continent’s most widely respected football administrator?

Well that respect might transcend Africa, but it does not appear to be shared within it. For the second time he was overlooked at African football’s top table.

With the main electoral business seeming to take up so much of the agenda, there was little time left for discussing how to improve African football.

There was, however, one important item on the agenda remaining: the creation of a CAF Hall of Fame, a wonderful and worthy idea to celebrate some of the great heroes of African football.

Who would be the first inductees? Roger Milla? George Weah? Joseph Antoine-Bell? Maybe an African who achieved greatness in the national shirt of a European country, like Marcel Desailly or Eusebio? Or a contemporary such as Didier Drogba or one of the Toure brothers?

Well none of these people, actually. The first names in the CAF Hall of Fame are Joseph Sepp Blatter and Issa Hayatou.

You couldn’t make it up.

"Dear all, thank you for your messages of support and comfort. God has been amazing to me, football..."

Wed, 06 Mar 2013 19:02:29 +0000

“Dear all, thank you for your messages of support and comfort. God has been amazing to me, football is still my passion …”

- FIFA Exco member, Jacques Anouma, offers his reaction to a CAS ruling that he is ineligible to stand in Sunday’s CAF presidential election

Makudi, the FFA and another fine mess

Wed, 06 Mar 2013 11:19:06 +0000

Sydney, we have a problem.

Nothing surprises in the world of football politics, but that the Football Federation Australia (FFA) are again found lacking beyond their home turf - having been so badly burned by FIFA during the World Cup bidding process - has an aura of predictability. Dark mutterings about FIFA emanated from its Darlinghurst headquarters after its December 2010 humiliation in Zurich, and yet within half a year they were lining up in support of Sepp Blatter’s FIFA presidency.

This time, in the AFC presidential race, they are apparently (the FFA have not responded to emails asking for confirmation) allying themselves with Worawi Makudi. Makudi’s colourful dealings are well known about and well documented by (amongst others) the Australian sportswriter Jesse Fink here here here and here. (Perhaps the FFA should have spent more time listening to Fink and less complaining about his well read column, that was outrageously axed in 2011, and they might have seen what they were getting into).

What is going on here? Some in Australia have suggested this is some sort of quid quo pro for the AFC’s support of Moya Dodd; a surprising explanation given that she is one of the pre-eminent women in world football. Others, that it’s merely the sort of realpolitik that has even previously witnessed its chairman publicly declare his friendship for a criminal like Indonesia’s Nurdin Halid.

What is most troubling about the FFA’s support is that it shows that it hasn’t learned the lessons from its calamitous and ill conceived World Cup bid. This isn’t an allusion to the organisation’s embarrassing habit of jumping into bed with whichever FIFA Exco member flutters his eyelashes. Nor is it a reference to its jumbled up strategic planning, its shaky PR machine or creaky leadership.

Back in 2010 the FFA burned through more than A$45million of Australian taxpayers’ money on the failed World Cup bid. Despite the organisation’s claims to the contrary, it was never properly accountable to its public, never giving – as an example – a decent explanation as to why nearly a quarter of that sum ended up in the pockets of sleazy overseas consultants.

That was supposed to be a one-off, but the FFA continues to be massively supported and subsidised by Australian government funds. Some A$61million from state and federal government is funding the 2015 AFC Cup (excluding infrastructural investment) and only last November a A$4million federal loan was written off to the organisation. In other words a lot of public money goes through the FFA’s books.

Surely an organisation that burns through the public purse like FFA owes its main stakeholders a word of explanation here? But we have had nothing. Not a word from its chairman Frank Lowy or its CEO David Gallop. Not even an off the record briefing or leak about its ties to yet another ‘colourful’ character.

It’s a sadly familiar situation. What the FFA’s support of Makudi’s candidacy demonstrates yet again is a withering contempt for the Australian taxpayer, who prop up and bail out the organisation but are neither repaid by the bond of accountability or the spoils of realpolitik. Surely they deserve more than this?

Qatargate Redux

Tue, 26 Feb 2013 08:06:00 +0000

Another day, another Qatar story

France Football has followed up last month’s somewhat sensationalist ‘Qatargate’ cover story with another ‘scoop’ on the origins of Qatar’s World Cup 2022 victory.

This time they look at links between the Gulf desert kingdom and Paraguay, home of CONMEBOL HQ and its president, Nicolas Leoz, who also sits on the FIFA Exco.

Leoz is understood to have voted for Qatar, along with his two fellow South American Exco members, Julio Grondona and Ricardo Teixiera. The focus of the article is the Emir of Qatar’s state visit to Paraguay in August 2010, when Leoz met the Qatari ruler in Asuncion in what are detailed as secretive circumstances.

Except… it can’t have been a very good secret because I reported on the visit for World Football Insider at the time and subsequently detailed the trip in a 12,000 word feature for the Blizzard magazine in June last year.

As part of the Emir’s state visit a cooperation agreement was signed between the countries promoting their ‘modernisation and capitalisation.’

Yet an unnamed source tells France Football that the Emir’s visit was a ‘smokescreen… a way of Leoz meeting the Qataris in Paraguay.’ There may be some element of truth in this and it’s an allegation I could probably attribute to any one of half a dozen FIFA insiders over the past two years. Certainly little seems to be beyond Leoz, who once (falsely) bragged to journalists he had been invited to Prince William’s wedding and was alleged to have asked for a knighthood in exchange for voting for England 2018.

But underlying the cooperation deal there were also serious stakes for an impoverished and landlocked country, stakes that transcended football.

Paraguay, which is energy poor, despite neighbouring Bolivia (which has South America’s second largest gas reserves) was reported locally to be seeking assistance in building a gas pipeline – an area in which Qatar has some considerable expertise – from Bolivia. It was suggested at the time that such a deal may have been one of the biggest pieces of inward investment Paraguay had seen.

Was such a cooperation agreement tied to Leoz’s vote for the 2022 World Cup? We’ll probably never know, but it was little coincidence that Qatar conducted several other trade deals with countries that possessed FIFA Exco members around this time. Certainly it’s my hypothesis that a big factor in Qatar’s eventual victory was linked to such deals, but they were by no means alone in bidders in using such tactics.

Would such a trade off be acceptable? Absolutely not, but then FIFA were incapable of protecting World Cup bidding from transnational interests, as I and others have repeated.

It’s a shame really that an august publication like France Football didn’t devote its resources to reporting on the World Cup bidding when it happened, instead of posthumously sensationalising stories that are (relatively) well known in the English language media. Perhaps at the time it wasn’t interested in upsetting its new partners at FIFA House, having seen its famous Ballon d’or award merged with FIFA’s World Player of the Year in July 2010. (The financial details of this four year ‘partnership’ are still to be revealed) The reality was that BBC Panoroma, the Sunday Times, the main English language newsagencies and a few specialist publications were the only ones to really concentrate on the story as it unfolded.

Gaps were undoubtedly left in our wake, for Planet FIFA is a complex and covert world. Perhaps with more help at the time we would have more clues to work with now when trying to uncover the secrets of Russia and Qatar’s victories. But instead, as each day passes, the truth becomes buried a little further under the weight of sensationalism, rumour and counter rumour.

Qatar 2022: A new desert star rising?

Thu, 21 Feb 2013 14:19:16 +0000

Will Hassan al-Thawadi follow in the footsteps of his compatriot, Mohamed Bin Hammam?

Qatar 2022 conspiracy theorists look away now – or at least find a darkened room.

A week out from nominations closing for AFC elections, which will be held in Kuala Lumpur at the start of May, there are growing murmurs that a significant candidate will emerge from the Gulf Kingdom of Qatar.

The AFC’s Extraordinary Congress on 2 May will settle its leadership vacuum that follows the demise of the former AFC’s president, Mohamed Bin Hammam, 20 months ago. His former role will be up for grabs along with those for a female Vice-President, two female members of its Executive Committee and a position on the FIFA Executive Committee.

Qatar is not interested in pursuing the AFC presidency, which is already being chased by three West Asian (and Gulf-based) candidates, Saudi Arabia’s Hafez Al Medlej, Yousuf Al Serkal of the United Arab Emirates and Sheikh Salman bin Ibrahim Al-Khalifa of Bahrain.

But, with the World Cup on the albeit distant horizon, the country is understood to be looking to reassert its presence at FIFA’s top table. The AFC presidency does not guarantee a place on the FIFA Executive Committee and, as Keir Radnedge reports, ‘The QFA president, Hamad Bin Khalifa Bin Ahmed Al-Thani, according to the Arab language media, has expressed an interest here on behalf of the 2022 World Cup host.’

This really should not be too surprising. Qatar’s World Cup bid was won on many fronts, but it would have been virtually impossible without Bin Hammam, the dealmaker supreme who forged a pact with the Spain-Portugal 2018 bid that set Qatar on the road to victory. It’s no surprise that in football politics terms it has received a battering since Bin Hammam’s protective hand was removed in 2011. A backlash against Qatar has since followed, and although it has attained football’s ultimate prize, its federation often finds itself adrift in the toxic waters of sport politics.

Much work needs to be done both to convince the world that it is a worthy host and convince FIFA. This might seem like an odd thing to write given that it voted for Qatar’s win, but there are elements on the FIFA Exco and in world football in general who are committed to using any pretext to strip the Gulf kingdom of its trophy. A Qatari member on the FIFA Exco would be politically expedient and bring it in from the cold.

This would present two obvious candidates: the Emir’s youngest son, Sheikh Mohammed, who served as chairman of Qatar’s World Cup bid; and Hassan al-Thawadi, who served as its CEO. It is understood that if Qatar presents an Exco candidate al-Thawadi is the most likely to be it.

This will no doubt infuriate the considerable anti-Qatar constituency, whose rhetoric is increasingly hysterical (and offensive to many Arabs, not just in Qatar) and whose most extreme elements point to some vast and unfathomable pro-Qatari global football conspiracy.

Personally, I think his candidature would be a good thing. Not because I have any particularly strong feelings about Qatar (my own view is that World Cup 2022 will not be the disaster others predict, but that the USA would have been the correct choice), but because the FIFA Exco is packed with mediocrity and he would improve it. From my own experience of him al-Thawadi is the sort of person you would want there. He is young, passionate, persuasive, charismatic and inclusive – the sort of qualities that are lacking in most of his prospective colleagues. His work with Qatar 2022 has displayed fine attention to detail, but he also grasps the bigger picture. Selling his World Cup bid as an event for the Middle East was one such masterstroke.

This is all, of course, conjecture at this stage, and football politics tends to be full of red herrings. But all will no doubt become clearer over coming days.

Hope amidst the storms

Thu, 14 Feb 2013 13:35:25 +0000

In the blizzard of bad publicity that seems to overwhelm FIFA week in, week out, it’s sometimes difficult to remember that much good work is carried out by the organisation and the extended FIFA family.

One of the more progressive members for its executive committee is Prince Ali Bin Hussein, who has frankly been a breath of fresh air since his elevation to the Exco just over two years ago.

Ali, who chairs FIFA’s social responsibility committee and the Asian Football Development Project (AFDP), and is the younger brother of Jordan’s ruler, King Abdullah, has seen a mounting humanitarian crisis in his own country. More than 200,000 refugees from neighbouring Syria are being joined by 3,000 of their compatriots each day. The situation is dire to say the least with foreign aid failing to keep pace with the influx of refugees.

The Syrian refugees join a long established refugee population from Palestine that threatens to overwhelm a country of Jordan’s size and resources.

What is football to do in a situation like this? Even a sport as ambitious and all consuming and wealthy as football has its limitations. But that’s not to say it should do nothing. Football can unite, give hope to the desperate, and inform.

It is the latter that the AFDP is seeking to utilise over the next four months at the Zaatari Refugee Camp as part of a collaboration with stakeholders including the Jordanian FA and the United Nations High Commision for Refugees. They will use football activities to promote Mine Risk Education (MRE) to 3,500 at-risk refugee children in an attempt to reduce the number of child fatalities and injuries that may be caused by land mines and Explosive Remnants of War (ERW).

The organisers say that the project ‘will also capitalize on the positive values of mutual respect and coexistence that football represents through football tournaments that bring Jordanian and Syrian communities together on the field.’

‘We are pleased that the coach training workshops were successful. We look forward to working together with our partners to begin the next phase of the project thereby benefitting all Syrian refugee children in Northern Jordan’, said Prince Ali.

Donations can be made to the charity Spirit of Soccer, which is supporting the project by clicking here

Reading the FIFA president’s runes

Tue, 12 Feb 2013 13:38:06 +0000

Much focus has been given to the media briefing FIFA president Sepp Blatter gave to a handpicked assortment of journalists ahead of last Sunday’s African Cup of Nations final in South Africa. In it, he simultaneously hit out at UEFA for their mean-spirited declaration on FIFA reform but also appeared to rebuke the Swiss Law professor, Mark Pieth, who is formulating those same reforms:

‘From time to time I realized that it is a deviation of the original objective and they are not coming with solutions, not recommendations, they are coming with decisions that we have [to take] … and we must,’ Blatter said. ‘But that is not what we have asked for. We have asked to give us solutions and we bring these solutions to the (FIFA) Congress.’

Moreover there was a hint that despite previous promises that he would step down in 2015, he may be prepared to seek another term.

He said: ‘My mandate ends in 2015, if God gives me my health … I know I have to stop, but I don’t know when I will stop.’

For a man who has such a poor reputation in the English-speaking world, there are surprising number of people who read his every utterance as if he is a 21^st century deity, endlessly seeking inner meaning from every word he speaks.

It’s worth dealing with some of the assumptions made after this press briefing point by point:

1/ Blatter is at war with Michel Platini

As anyone who witnessed what happened in the 2011 presidential race - or at the 2002 FIFA Congress - this is not war.

Platini is Blatter’s former protégé, of course, working as a special advisor in the first part of his FIFA presidency; Blatter also helped him ascend to the UEFA presidency six years ago. Since then their relationship has been characterised by rebukes and flattery – both in public and muttered in darkened corridors. The strains in their relationship have been much publicised of late, but in public Blatter always talks of the UEFA president as his likeliest successor.

Naturally, this is the FIFA way –Blatter talked about Bin Hammam as being ‘his brother’ not long before pressing the nuclear button on him. But if you’re going to talk about rivalry you need to bear in mind the amity, no matter how superficial it might be.

What happened at the weekend was Blatter defending FIFA’s position from UEFA’s shameful demands – as is his duty as the organisation’s president. What was he supposed to do? Roll over and let a single confederation dictate FIFA’s running?

2/ Blatter unleashed?

There are those close to the FIFA president who will tell you that his final presidential term is not about making compromises but finally fighting for what he believes in; for the betterment of FIFA and world football.

It’s true that his presidency has sometimes been defined by kowtowing to confederations and powerful rivals on the FIFA exco, while his staff battle behind the scenes. This isn’t something he needs to worry about any more; partly because he says he’s not going to stand as president again, and partly because so many of his powerful rivals are now gone.

Just over two years ago Blatter had to contend with Jack Warner at CONCACAF, Mohamed Bin Hammam at the AFC, the powerful, ambitious and outspoken FIFA vice president Chung Mong-joon, as well as his former boss’s deeply corrupt son-in-law, Ricardo Texiera. Those challenges are all gone, and although relations with UEFA can be tempestuous and CONMEBOL dances to its own tune, world football is – relatively speaking – a calmer place. The need to compromise is less acute.

As he said at the weekend:

‘I will fight for the reform of FIFA and I will fight to keep what FIFA is now, a federation of national associations and not a holding of confederations [who make decisions]. I will fight that until the last day of my mandate in 2015.’

Do we believe this? My own view is that there’s a perpetual battle between Blatter the pragmatist and Blatter the idealist. Perhaps he can err further towards his aim of making football mankind’s central cultural activity (with FIFA at the forefront of this) in the last 30 months of his presidency. Perhaps also he can salvage something of his reputation amidst the wildfire of FIFA scandal, although he is probably deeply aware that it is beyond repair in parts of the world.

3/ Blatter will go on forever

‘My mandate ends in 2015, if God gives me my health, and I know I have to stop but I don’t know when I will stop.’

This is classic Blatter, promising something and then contradicting himself within the space of the same sentence. It also shows his expertise as a politician, leaving the door ajar when it had seemed at the time of his election to be slammed shut. Perhaps over coming months it may creep slightly further open.

In the week that another elderly German speaker has resigned his job for life, my own view, shared by many FIFA watchers, is that despite his 2011 pledges, unlike the Pope we just can’t see Blatter giving up unless - like Havelange - he is forced into a corner. Or else carried out of FIFA House in a wooden box. The third way, perhaps, is that he passes down the crown to a favoured son, like Jerome Valcke or Jerome Champagne, and is kept in the loop like a Dowager Emperor.

But even some of his closest aides have hinted that he may go on beyond 2015 – and then admit that even they don’t really know what he’ll do.

Why not enjoy old age and be free of all the backbiting and squabbles and scandal? Does he fear someone discovering his secrets? Or is it the looming void that would suddenly appear when the time to go comes? FIFA is everything to Blatter. Exactly half of his 76 years have been devoted to the organisation.

In sum, this was a classic performance by the FIFA president; seeming to be outspoken, but at the same time qualifying most of his utterances. Whenever he lashes out he caresses with the same hand.

Having watched and followed Blatter for some years the realization isn’t long in coming that he should be measured in actions rather than words. At times he says something and does the complete opposite. Other times he maintains a silence and does something quite by surprise. The reality is that no one knows what will happen next, even those closest to him. We should assume nothing; there may be a few surprises still to come.

What's a FIFA Exco member to do?

Fri, 08 Feb 2013 06:00:00 +0000

“The FIFA Executive Committee is the most powerful and influential administrative body in world sport and having elected Australian representation would bring immeasurable status to our nation and Australian football.”

It is difficult sometimes to imagine what goes through the minds of sports administrators when they talk about FIFA. Realpolitik? Deference? Naivety?

In the case of the Australian Federation’s (FFA) new CEO, David Gallop, who greeted the nomination of Moya Dodd as a candidate for the FIFA Exco in such terms last week, one suspects it is a mixture of all three.

Gallop, of course, had no involvement with the FFA’s car crash World Cup bid, which blew A$46million of taxpayers money and saw the country humiliated by FIFA just 26 months ago. But his genuflecting at the palace of King Sepp is puzzling to say the least.

Australia has often lacked self-confidence on the global stage and grapples with its national identity, even more than a century after independence. But would having someone sit at football’s top table really add ‘immeasurable status’ to the Australian nation? Really? (It also neglects that Dodd’s prospective mandate would be to represent women’s football not Australia)

I’m sure this sort of thing plays well in front of Sepp Blatter, but Gallop should ask his chairman at the FFA, Frank Lowy, just how far sucking up to the FIFA president gets you. (Not very far).

Of course it’s a good thing that Moya Dodd – a former national team player and AFC vice president, who is highly regarded among her colleagues in Asian football – joins Lydia Nsekera, Paula Kearns and Sonia Bien-Aime as a nominee for the Exco in May. Better still she has started to articulate a position and public voice on football.

But is this enough?

Writing on Sports Business Insider, Dodd’s compatriot Bonita Mersiades gave eight questions that she should be asking if her election bid is successful. These were:

• How much do you get paid, Sepp?
• Why are Nicolas Leoz, Julio Grondona, Worawi Makudi, Jacques Anouma, Issa Hayatou and Chuck Blazer still here?
• How much has FIFA, or organisations on behalf of FIFA, paid Peter Hargitay? When? What for?
• How much do members of the Ethics Committee get paid? Can I see their expense accounts?
• How can we ensure that this ExCo is more representative of, and responsive to, the ‘forgotten stakeholders’ of the game – players and fans?
• Why don’t we publish all the minutes of the Executive Committee meetings online?
• When can I see the new guidelines for bidding for the 2026 World Cup so I can make sure they’re not custom-made for bestowing favours?
• And hey guys, when did you really decide to vote for Russia and Qatar?

Merisades, a former head of corporate affairs at the FFA, is a formidable sports administrator in her own right (one of the best I encountered before she was shamefully axed three years ago by an organisation beholden to its noxious overseas consultants), acknowledged the ‘sad truth’ that it was unlikely that such questions would be voiced. Pass the ‘induction [into] the very close knit Exco family and [she will understand] – as she intrinsically does – that it’s better to be part of the gang than not.’

This, alas, is the reality of the FIFA family. Speak out and you become a pariah, ostracised, powerless. Moreover, when your constituency is federations, most aren’t remotely interested in questions of governance. Take FIFA’s annual development money and don’t ask questions is the mantra of at least three-quarters of world football’s 209 member associations.

That isn’t to say that on joining the Exco you instantly become part of the problem, but most entrants do. Very few of those who represent an organisation whose logo is ‘For The Game, For The World’ bother to speak to anyone outside their inner circles, other than to order the next round of drinks. When I reported on FIFA regularly, no more than six or seven Exco members ever deigned to speak with the press on or off the record. I assume other football stakeholders were given similar accountability.

Yet it doesn’t have to be that way. Things have changed slightly for the better in the past few years with the ascent of the impressive Prince Ali Bin Hussein and the formidable Theo Zwanzigger. But for every Prince Ali there’s a Jim Boyce, who seems to have followed the inglorious path set by the gnomish Geoff Thompson, who took his per diems and kept his head down.

As you can probably gather my expectations are low for most entering FIFA’s ruling council. I recognise that the awkward questions suggested by Mersiades are probably best left to journalists for now (Chung Mong-joon never got far by posing them). But what would I expect from a newly elected Exco member?

Given the low bar, I’d make things easy:

1/ Honesty

2/ Accountability

3/ Transparency

4/ Dialogue with stakeholders

5/ Pursuit of football’s best interests and not those of myself/ my federation/ my confederation/ my national government.

These might sound like pretty basic and fundamental virtues, but I can count on one hand those who adhere to all of them.

Perhaps when a majority of football’s powerbrokers follow these rules then the awkward questions can be asked – and answered.

Financial doping is dead, long live £35m losses!

Thu, 07 Feb 2013 18:24:00 +0000

The Premier League’s new cost control measures come in 20 years too late, but will at least prevent another Man City or Chelsea from happening.

The Premier League has announced that its 20 member clubs have agreed in principle ‘a system of enhanced financial regulations, which are designed to further improve the sustainability of clubs.’

The two-fold measures will see pay packets pegged back when a lucrative new TV deal comes into place at the end of this season.

The Premier League will also limit losses to ‘just’ £35million per season over the next three years.

A media release from the Premier League outlined the reforms in the following terms:

Long-Term Sustainability Regulation

- From season 2013/14 Premier League clubs cannot make a loss in excess of £105m aggregated across seasons 2013/14, 2014/15 and 2015/16. - Any club that makes a loss up to that limit will be subject to a tighter regulatory regime that includes:

Secure Owner Funding for three years ahead

Increased Future Financial Information over the next three seasons

Short-Term Cost Control Measure

- Premier League clubs are restricted in terms the amount of increased PL Central Funds that can be used to increase current player wage costs to the tune of:

2013/14: £4m

2014/15: £8m

2015/16: £12m

The Short-Term cost control measure applies only to clubs with a player wage bill in excess of £52m in 2012/13, £56m in 2014/15 and £60m in 2015/16.

Sanctions for clubs that fail to meet the requirements were not detailed.

Based on the most recently available financial results, the cost controls could pose problems for three clubs – Aston Villa (which made losses of £54.9million in its last financial year), Liverpool (£49.4m) and Manchester City (£97.9million). However the Premier League’s criteria is calculated on results over the next three years, a period which will see clubs’ revenue increase by record amounts due to the Premier League’s new £5.5 billion TV deal.

Fears that this extra money will be swallowed up by increased wages were partly allayed by the short term cost control measures, which limits clubs’ ability to spend their new money on wages.

Does it go far enough? Call me old fashioned, but I would hesitate to describe limiting financial losses to seven figures a ‘triumph’, particularly when the Premier League allow treble the losses that UEFA permit under Financial Fair Play. On the other hand the short term cost control measures will go some way in stopping the new TV money from being emptied into the local Bentley dealer’s cash register (via players’ bank accounts, of course) and for the money to be reinvested into the game or at least to mitigate some of the Premier League’s debt mountain.

What it will mean is that the sort of insidious financial doping witnessed at Chelsea and Manchester City will never be allowed to happen on such a scale again – although UEFA’s Financial Fair Play may have put paid to that anyway. It might also limit the chances of ‘another Portsmouth’ happening, although £105million of aggregated losses is a lot by any estimation and relegation could be deadly.

To be honest, it’s the sort of measure that should have been instituted 20 years ago. Alas, the Premier League has been governed by the short term interests of its ‘shareholders’ (i.e. clubs) and, by default, the crazy expectations of supporters for most of that time. Only now are the clubs growing up a little, but perhaps – after the damage caused by City and Chelsea and now threatened by QPR – it will be too late for the true competitive ethos of English football to return.

—UPDATE 20:00—

What has emerged in the two hours subsequent to the Premier League announcing details of the deal, are two tiers of losses.

The £35m per season allowable loss over three years must be underwritten by club owners. If it is not, it is limited to a £5million per year loss. This is still a lot but will at least prevent ‘another Portsmouth’ to use the term that ill probably be smeared all over tomorrow’s newspapers.

Mark Pieth’s losing battle

Thu, 07 Feb 2013 13:03:00 +0000

Mark Pieth, FIFA reform and a futile crusade

To those who have followed FIFA’s stuttering reform process closely over the past twenty months, there will be less surprise at the nature of Mark Pieth outburst this week than the fact that it hasn’t come earlier.

Pieth, a Swiss Law professor who has been hired as a consultant by FIFA to oversee the reform of its governance, used an explosive interview with Sueddeutsche Zeitung to articulate his intense frustration with elements within world football that have blocked his roadmap for reform.

Moreover, he set himself on collision course with FIFA President Sepp Blatter by criticising the process that saw Mohamed Bin Hammam withdraw from the 2011 FIFA presidential race. This was the result of a ‘deal’ said Pieth, hinting at the long held belief that Bin Hammam withdrew after an agreement between Blatter and the Emir of Qatar that would ease the questioning of their country’s controversial hosting of World Cup 2022. Bin Hammam’s exit, he said, ‘violated all principles of criminal procedure.’

What was most troubling in this interview were Pieth’s accusations of political interference in the work of his so-called Independent Governance Group. His criticism of UEFA’s mealy mouthed response to the IGC was predictable and justified. More worrisome were his claims that members of the FIFA Exco blocked his suggestions for a FIFA ethics prosecutor.

His first choice Luis Moreno Ocampo was blocked by FIFA’s senior vice-president Julio Grondona in league with Argentina’s President, Cristina Kirchner. Ocampo made his reputation as a fearless prosecutor in Argentina’s 1980s junta trials and subsequently as prosecutor of the international criminal court, and Grondona and others would have good reason to fear him in particular.

FIFA provides an environment in which dictators’ stooges outlast the murderous and once seemingly untouchable men who oversaw their ascent to power. Thus while the Ivorian tyrant Laurent Gbagbo sits in the Hague awaiting judgement on war crimes charges, his former financial advisor Jacques Anouma makes a bid for the CAF presidency. And while Hosni Murbarak resides in an Egyptian jail, Hany Abu Rida – described by the former FA chairman Lord Triesman as ‘a very close associate’ of the deposed Egyptian dictator - is untouchable on the FIFA Exco. Grondona’s own links to the long-deposed Argentine junta are well documented.

Pieth, to his credit, was explicitly clear about this.

‘If you look back at people who have been on the FIFA Exco, many were in league with former dictators,’ he said.

‘The great strength of Ocampo was that, before he went to The Hague, he brought to court the dictators of Argentina who had unleashed the Falklands War. His background is the struggle against fascist dictators.

‘If you take Grondona, or [CONMEBOL president] Nicolas Leoz from Paraguay, and consider that region’s record with dictators such as Stroessner and Banzer, you can piece together the rest. I won’t say anything else or I will get into trouble.’

Two further choices, Pieth claimed, including Scotland Yard Deputy Commissioner Sue Akers, were blocked because senior Exco members refused to be policed by a woman. The American Michael Garcia was eventually appointed to the role, but not on the recommendation of the IGC. Instead Ronald Noble, head of Interpol, put him forward. Interpol is tied to FIFA via a €20m, 10-year anti-corruption investment.

‘I was very upset because politics got in the way of my own preference,’ Pieth said.

‘One was turned down because he fought fascists … and the sexism which barred the women.’

FIFA EXCO members, he complained, ‘live 20 years in the past.’

This, anyone could have told him when he embarked on his reform project in summer 2011, is a generous assessment.

The Futile Crusade

When I encountered Pieth, when he was giving a keynote address at the European Association of Sport Management Conference in Aalborg last September, although there was none of the outspokenness that defined his Sueddeutsche Zeitung interview it seemed as if he was paving the way for the failure of his own reforms. He invited ‘civil society, and especially the fans, to push for reforms’. This seemed to me an extraordinary and slightly desperate thing to say and pointed at the weakness of his own position. It seemed as if he needed public support because he had none himself from within FIFA.

This was always going to be a fundamental problem for Pieth, or whoever else sought to help FIFA self-regulate. The mandate for change ultimately lies with the FIFA Exco, but it’s the FIFA Exco that are the cause of many of FIFA’s problems. It was always obvious that the Grondonas, Leozs, Hayatous and Teixieras of the Exco were never going to have much interest in ending the gravy train through their own volition. What is more disappointing – indeed shameful – is that some European members have not backed up their own rhetoric to support change. The turkeys not voting for Christmas is the oft-used aphorism, but there is much truth in it.

That leaves the handful of progressively minded Exco members, such as Theo Zwanzigger and Prince Ali Bin Hussein, to support change, and Sepp Blatter, who publicly backs reform (but I suspect might have his own reasons to prevent it from going too far). Seen in such a context the prospects do not look much good.

Pieth suggested this week that he could always walk away from the reform process - ‘I can always say, if there’s no progress: ‘Goodbye FIFA.’” – and that the organisation risked wasting “10 years” if it didn’t see the process through. It’s his call whether he oversees a reform process that is plagued by compromise or even outright failure, or goes down in flames of his own accord.

Either way I doubt that it will matter much. FIFA has suffered and survived worse, and Pieth’s attempts – which might always have been in vain – will have bought Blatter and FIFA a couple of years respite during a period when its reputation has never stood lower.

Qatargate

Tue, 29 Jan 2013 11:51:00 +0000

France Football have published a 15 page investigation into Qatar 2022. Here are some of my thoughts on it.

A decade ago, Germany’s Manager Magazin published a devastating expose of how the country had won the hosting rights for the 2006 World Cup. Although the tournament would go on to be one of the best organised in World Cup history, the nature of its bid success was subsequently described to me as ‘the biggest scandal in FIFA history.’ More than a decade later in South Africa – which was Germany’s vanquished rival and subsequently awarded the 2010 edition – resentment still burns at the way it was overlooked for the 2006 World Cup.

Manager detailed an intricate nexus of corruption and backhanders to FIFA Exco members that won Germany the hosting rights. It was an outstanding piece investigative journalism. To FIFA’s shame (and to little surprise) it did not investigate the claims and punish the implicated Exco members or Germany.

More than two years out from the conclusion of a dual bid race even more discredited than that for 2006, France Football, one of the world’s great sporting publications, has published a 15 page investigation into Qatar 2022. This is a serious, erudite, heavyweight piece of journalism, and credit to its editors for covering such a big issue at a time when the rest of Europe’s sport media are predominantly obsessed with the mindless intricacies of the January transfer window.

But it is, alas, no Manager Magazin and those familiar with the way the story has unravelled over the past few years while find little new. Most of the issues were outlined in my own 12,000 essay, The Fall Out, published in The Blizzard last June. I wrote from the context of covering the bid race for 18 months, visiting most of the nine candidate countries and meeting all of the key players. Other journalists, including Keir Radnedge, Andrew Warshaw, Martyn Ziegler, Mike Collett, Mark Bisson and others have covered this story with similar attention to detail and experiences.

France Football have published a compendium of allegations to have surfaced in relation to Qatar before and since FIFA’s bid decision.

In summary they are:

The votes of Issa Hayatou and Jacques Anouma were bought for $1.5million apiece. This was alleged by the Qatari whistleblower, Phaedra al-Majid and brought to public attention (without her consent) by a British Parliamentary Select Committee. Al-Majid subsequently retracted these and other accusations, although the circumstances behind her mea culpa are mysterious.

The allegations made against Amos Adamu and his son, Samson, by the Sunday Times are outlined.

That Qatar sponsored the 2010 CAF Congress.

The influence of the Qatari sports institute, Aspire, and its global outreach programme

The meetings between then French President Nicolas Sarkozy, UEFA president Michel Platini and the Qatari Crown Prince and how geopolitics swung Platini to favour Qatar.

That Qatar allegedly considered a TV deal in Argentina to buy the favour of Julio Grondono.

Ricardo Teixiera and his links to Middle East holding companies.

The use of ‘prestige’ international football friendlies to garner influence.

It’s a well articulated piece and important that all these aspects are put into a single narrative, but there’s no real smoking gun. I think the journalist James M. Dorsey is most on the money when he is quoted: ‘The Qataris were very malignant and explored all the shadows and were near to the edge of the cliff, but, in my opinion, didn’t cross the yellow line.’

For me the only new revelation was that a couple of Swiss law firms are looking at the legalities of a winter switch, and that Karl Heinz Rummenigge, president of the European Clubs Association, says on the record for the first time that he is not averse to making European club football a summer game. While the Qatar Supreme Committee get a right of reply, it wasn’t clear from my reading whether the reporter had actually visited Qatar.

There is also a lack of context regarding the bid race itself. The rules of engagement – such as they were – set out by FIFA were there to be exploited. They were wholly inadequate and this was compounded by the ludicrous decision to simultaneously run the 2018 and 2022 races. This led to all sorts of vote trading, secret (and illegal) pacts and other horseplay.

The lack of context is slightly troubling, because it adds to the Qatar-bad, everyone else-virtuous narrative which is overly simplistic. The reality is far more nuanced and complex than those assumptions would suggest. I think it’s fair to say that few people came out of the bid race with much credit and while it may have been more palatable for England, the US or Australia to have won hosting rights, they lost out to healthier resourced opponents who played to the margins better than they did.

Every bid that was in serious contention sought to exploit loopholes in the bid guidelines and played to the line. Yes, Qatar sponsored the CAF Congress, but England 2018 supported the Caribbean Football Union’s annual beanfest. It’s true that Qatar had the influential (and subsequently disgraced) Mohamed Bin Hammam, but the United States had those paradigms of virtue Jack Warner and Chuck Blazer. Qatar spent millions on PR consultants, but other bids spent a lot of money and charmed and bullied and smeared journalists (the vitriolic campaign against Andrew Jennings and his Panorama programme on FIFA was one of the most disgraceful things I’ve witnessed in journalism). And you think that Australia, which pumped millions of its taxpayers money into the pockets of people like Fedor Radmann played a straight bat? And then there’s the 22 men who made the decision, half of whom have had significant questions about there integrity posed since December 2010. I could go on (and on).

It was a dirty game and the victors, whoever they were, were always going to be tainted. That’s something Qatar and Russia probably realise comes with the territory. The truth about their victories, alas, remains elusive. But we will keep digging.

UEFA and its limits for FIFA's transparency roadmap

Thu, 24 Jan 2013 21:44:00 +0000

Four months out from FIFA Congress, at which its president Sepp Blatter will attempt to push through the remnants of its proposed governance reforms, UEFA has set its stall out. In doing so European football’s governing body appears to have fulfilled criticism that its leaders are prioritising their own ambitions over the good of world football.

At a meeting in Nyon today, UEFA’s 53 members unanimously adopted a declaration regarding proposed amendments to the FIFA Statutes. The declaration will cause immediate disappointment to those hoping for far reaching reform of football governance.

Most eye-catching among its proposals were for an eight year initial term for the FIFA presidency, with a second four year term an option - 12 years would be the overall limit, in common with the IOC presidency. This goes against the proposed two 4 year term period proposed by FIFA’s Independent Governance Committee (IGC). Sepp Blatter will have served 17 years by the time his current term expires.

UEFA also proposed to end article 77 of the FIFA statutes which provides FIFA a levy on every international match played. Such a proposal would end a century long funding mechanism for football’s world governing body and surely have a detrimental effect on its disbursement of global development money.

UEFA also declined to support the IGC’s limit on FIFA’s 25-member executive committee to three 4-year terms. UEFA, which currently has delegates with 25, 17 and 15 years’ service at FIFA, proposes no limit.

Integrity checks for Exco members, say UEFA, should follow guidelines proposed by FIFA but be carried out by confederations. According to UEFA an age limit of 72 at the time of election would also be appropriate.

The IGC’s chairman, the Swiss law professor Mark Pieth has been critical of the confederations’ approach to FIFA reform and last week openly criticised UEFA’s approach in a German newspaper. He singled out Platini and Angel Villar Llona for criticism in a wide ranging interview.

“There is resistance from people who are afraid of losing something, and people who hope to achieve something in the future,” said Pieth.

Platini, he suggested, was openly opposed to some of the reforms, while Villar Llona, who is allied to FIFA’s 3 South American Exco members, led backroom revolts.

Many on the FIFA Exco, he said, that “want to change things think only of themselves and their own careers.”

Looking through today’s declaration it would be difficult to disagree with Pieth’s observations. Perhaps what is most striking is the amendment which proposes:

Candidates for the FIFA Presidency should be supported by their own national association and/or confederation and have an ‘active office’ within that national association and/or confederation.

This is seemingly a minor amendment, but if carried would have consequences on the next FIFA presidential race. As well as Villar Llona, three of the most likely candidates come from France – Platini, Jerome Valcke and Jerome Champagne – which would, depending on the wording, place the French Football Federation as kingmaker, or exclude Valcke or Champagne’s candidacy altogether.

For me, that suggests that UEFA are in a flummox, for neither of the latter two candidates would neccesserily represent Europe’s interests in world football. Certainly Blatter – a Swiss - hasn’t.

Football politics’ ultimate prize has been outside UEFA’s reach since 1974. It might still be for some time to come.