FIFA Investigating Itself over 2018/2022 WCF Bidding Process

FIFA noted this week that its Ethics Prosecutor, Michael Garcia, will be investigating the allegations of corruption in the 2018 and 2022 World Cup bidding contests.

In a statement released by FIFA, Garcia said he "intends to conduct a thorough review of those allegations, including the evidentiary basis for and credibility of any allegations of individual misconduct."

I can already tell you what his findings will be. There is insufficient evidence of any irregularities. The allegations have no basis in fact and are the result purely of English and American media bias and sour grapes. No further action will be taken. Case closed.

And it's possible that such a finding would be accurate.

The problem is that observers are now so aware of the numerous other corruption scandals that FIFA has been embroiled in that the organisation has absolutely no credibility.

An independent, third party investigation is needed.

Also, changes need to be made to the bidding process.

The first thing I would do would be develop a scoring rubric and release it to potential bidders  at the time bids are asked for. It would clearly state how the winning bid would be selected and what weight is being given to each aspect of the bids (stadiums, mass transport systems, environmental concerns, accommodation, training facilities, media infrastructure, human rights, legacy, climate, geographical location, fan experience, the ability to host in June/July, etc.)

Such a system would stop countries such as England or the United States concentrating on technical bids, and being unsuccessful when it turns out that geographical location is the prime concern.

Secondly, the FIFA ExCo should not be the people determining which bid is successful. I would instead pick a very large panel of independent experts from across the globe each capable of evaluating one aspect of the bid and have them each score the bids on their area of expertise. The final scores could then be calculated and the winning bid announced.

The current system is far too open to abuse. Having a relatively small panel of 24 ExCo members picking the winners is to invite corruption, especially when so many of them have been in positions of power for decades. There are too many favours owed and grievances remembered and conflicts of interests for the process to be fair and transparent.

Way back when Germany was awarded the 2006 World Cup Finals, ExCo member Charlie Dempsey abstained from voting because of the pressure placed on him by bidding countries at the time of the vote. One must assume this included bribes and/or threats. Dempsey had announced he would vote for the English bid until England was eliminated, at which point he would consider his options. But once England was out of the running, Dempsey was under so much 'pressure' he fled home to New Zealand, thus abstaining from voting and in the process allowing Germany to beat South Africa by one vote.

There is no reason to believe that the 'pressures' are any less now.

And given the number of current and recent FIFA officials involved in controversy over the past few years, I have little confidence that all of the ExCo members can conduct a clean vote.

And neither do I have confidence that an investigation of the 2018/2022 process, undertaken by a FIFA insider, will be capable of allaying public suspicion should the outcome be similar to what I predicted above.

Luiz Adriano is Banned - UEFA Breaking FIFA Rules?

The one-match ban handed out by UEFA to Luiz Antonio for "unsportsmanlike play" during the Champions' League clash between Nordsjaelland and Shakhtar Donetsk raises a number of questions.

In case you've forgotten, Luiz Adriano is the player who scored a goal for Shakhtar from what was supposed to be an instance of his team returning the ball to Nordsjaelland from a drop-ball after the game was halted to allow treatment for an injured Nordsjaelland player. Adriano ignored convention and ran after the ball before rounding the mystified goalkeeper and slotting the ball into an empty net.

There is no doubt that Adriano's actions were reprehensible and most neutrals would agree that this did indeed constitute unsportsmanlike play.

But this ban raises some interesting questions.

If Adriano's actions constituted unsporting behaviour, the referee should have stopped the game at the point he rounded the goalkeeper and awarded the player a yellow card, as is required of him under Law 12 of the Laws of the Game. The goal would then not have been scored and the match would have restarted with an indirect free-kick to the Danish team.

But the referee did not do this. In the opinion of the referee, what occurred did not meet the criteria of being considered unsporting behaviour, so he took no action and allowed the goal to stand.

So here we have a case of the referee (and probably all the other five officials) clearly witnessing an incident and determining that there was no foul committed and no unsporting behaviour occurred.  Therefore, my understanding is that under FIFA's rules, no retroactive punishment can be meted out to the player. This is because FIFA attempts to respect the authority of the referee by only allowing retroactive punishments for incidents that weren't spotted by the officials. This seems to be a clear and unambiguous case of UEFA breaking FIFA's own rules.

Despicable as Luiz Adriano's actions were, if UEFA is allowed to hand out punishment for incidents that were seen by the officials, what is now to stop UEFA from retroactively punishing other actions from players that were also seen but not punished by the officials?  What is to stop UEFA President Michel Platini from now being able to ban a player for what he deems to be a reckless foul, even if the referee has seen it and deemed it to be a fair tackle?

Another point to consider is that the punishment for unsporting behaviour is a caution, not a dismissal. If the referee had determined that unsporting behaviour had occurred, he would have shown a yellow card to Luiz Adriano and the incident would be soon forgotten.

I don't see how UEFA can hand out a suspension for what is only a yellow card offence. Does UEFA now also have the power to suspend players who fail to stay back ten yards at a free-kick (also a yellow card offence) if the referee doesn't penalise them for it? I don't think so.

I am willing to agree that Luiz Adriano's actions were ill-advised and that the goal should not have been allowed. What is needed is a modification to the Laws of the Game that specifically includes actions such as this as being punishable by a yellow card for unsporting behaviour.

Because no such reference currently exists in the Laws of the Game, surely it is up to the referee to determine whether or not unsporting behaviour has taken place, and if he determines that it hasn't, then UEFA has no place undermining the authority of the referee and handing out ad hoc suspensions on a whim.

Football Could Learn from Futsal

I've been watching some of the FIFA World Futsal Cup from Thailand and I am finding it oddly pleasing on the eye.

The most notable feature for me is the complete lack of time-wasting incidents in the game. After the ball goes out it is quickly put back into play. I have yet to see a single player feigning injury. Substitutions take place quickly and efficiently, whether teams are winning or losing.

No doubt the main reason for these pleasing features is that the clock stops when the ball goes out of play. There is therefore nothing to be gained by wasting time, whether you are winning or losing,

I find it interesting that international futsal players are capable of getting up immediately after falling on a hard floor, whereas so many international footballers writhe around in apparent agony at the slightest of falls on a watered grass field.

FIFA recently disbanded a committee charged with looking at ways of improving the game ('led' by Pelé and Franz Beckenbauer, although Pelé apparently never attended even a single meeting) because all it could come up with was the idea of handshakes at the end of the match. Any amateur footballer will tell you they already do this at the completion of their games.

This committee could have done worse than suggesting a trial of stopping the clock when the ball is out of play, with a reduction in playing time of say thirty minutes per half. I'm not saying this should be introduced, but anything that rids of the game of the twin evils of time-wasting and feigning injuries has to be worthy of consideration.

Simulation is cheating, even when there is contact

It's been a weekend of controversial refereeing decisions, most noticeably in the Barclays Premier League where offside goals were allowed, legitimate goals were incorrectly disallowed, questionable red cards were given out and the whole discussion about contact, fouls and simulation has been raging ever since.

My football weekend actually began watching Wellington Phoenix attempt to continue their unbeaten A-League run away to Adelaide United. The Phoenix took the lead and then gave up an equaliser, before the officials made three major decisions that all went against the Phoenix.

The first of these was correct. In seemingly heading his team back into the lead,Phoenix striker Jeremy Brockie had wandered marginally offside when the ball was crossed to him. This was an extremely tight call. There was no 'daylight' between the players, which some fans incorrectly believe is a requirement for offside to be awarded. Nevertheless, the correct decision was probably made.

Shortly afterwards Adelaide United's Brazilian defender Cassio scored, but replays showed he too was offside. On this occasion, the goal stood.

The third incident saw Adelaide's Argentinian midfielder Jeronimo Neumann go down after the slightest of touches on the shoulder from Phoenix defender Ben Sigmund, when it was clear that he could easily have stayed on his feet and only went down when he realised the ball was going to Mark Paston, the goalkeeper. Inexplicably, a red card was shown to Sigmund for denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity.

There were two contentious discussion points here.

Firstly, it looked a clear case of simulation, although it could be argued that technically it WAS a foul by Sigmund, albeit not enough to send his opponent sprawling.

Secondly, there did not seem to be even a small chance of a goal being scored, let alone an OBVIOUS one, so at most a yellow card should have been awarded to Sigmund.

Wellington played the remainder of the match one match short and conceded a third goal while chasing the game, and it was hard not to think that the officials affected the outcome of the match. What was worse, the A-League decided that the red card should stand, meaning that Sigmund was suspended for the next match.

Simulation is, in my opinion, becoming an ever-increasing blight on the game, and it's time for changes to be made.

Firstly, players who dive and who are not caught by the referee, should be retroactively punished by an independent review panel, by being suspended for three games.

Secondly, it's time to change the ridiculous idea that if there is contact, players have every right to go down. The laws of the game clearly state that a direct free-kick should be awarded if a player... "trips or attempts to trip an opponent." Nowhere do the laws say that a player is entitled to a free-kick if an opponent comes into contact with him or her.

Unfortunately specific advice has been given to Barclays Premier League referees that if there is contact, a yellow card cannot be given for simulation. In my opinion, this is ridiculous. The laws specifically state that a player MUST be cautioned for unsporting behaviour if (he/she) "attempts to deceive the referee by feigning injury or pretending to have been fouled (simulation)."

If a player can stay on their feet, they should. The referee can still decide that they were unfairly disadvantaged by the contact and award them a free-kick or penalty. I would like to see a situation where the free-kick is awarded for the foul, and the player being fouled is given a yellow card for simulation. That's not going to happen under the current way of thinking, even though the laws of the game seem to allow it.

Under the current viewpoint, Mark Clattenburg was wrong to give Fernando Torres a second yellow card against Manchester United for simulation, because there was minimal contact (so minimal that Clattenburg couldn't see it). Under my preferred way of thinking, even though there was minimal contact, it wasn't enough to constitute a foul and therefore Torres' act of simulation would have been punished by the yellow card.

I really think it's time for IFAB to look at this whole issue more closely and make a brave decision that discourages cheating - not just blatant cheating where there is no contact, but also cheating when there is minimal contact.

Secondly, when obviously wrong decisions are made that result in cards or suspensions, there should be provision for national associations to overturn them. I understand the need to support the referees, but as a referee myself, I know that it's impossible to see every incident clearly, and if video evidence proved I was wrong, I would hate for a player to be unfairly suspended because of my mistake.

Fernando Torres, under the current climate, would have his second yellow card overturned.

And Ben Sigmund's red card would be changed to a yellow, because there was no goalscoring opportunity.

But I hope that some time soon, there is a change in culture and actions such as those by Torres and Neumann will result in deserved yellow cards,

Stoppage Time Inconsistency

The inconsistent determination of stoppage time has been gnawing at me for years, but it came to a head over the last two weekends.

First we had Norwich and West Ham playing out a drab, scoreless second half at Carrow Road, where there were no injuries, no goals, a single yellow card and five substitutions, all of which were done efficiently with minimum wasted time. The referee somehow found three minutes to add on.

As I write, Liverpool versus Manchester United is drawing to a close. The second half has had three goals, all celebrated at length, three yellow cards, four substitutions plus two major injuries (Agger and Rafael) that combined stopped the game for a minimum of six minutes. Yet there was only five minutes stoppage time showing on the fourth official's board. While I can't prove it, I guarantee that without the injuries there would have been three minutes added, which means the 6-7 minutes of actual injuries were only deemed worthy of two additional minutes.

In general, it seems that referees add one minute to the first half and three minutes to the second half, no matter what happens. If something exceptional happens, they then add one or two more minutes.

This needs to stop. We have been calling for transparency from FIFA, UEFA, CONCACAF, etc. We also need it from our referees. The IFAB needs to look at the issue of stoppage time and come up with a clear, unambiguous explanation as to how referees should decide how much time to add on. Otherwise, we'll be left with inconsistency and the feeling that some teams are given more additional time when they are losing than others.

2018/2022 World Cup Hosting Investigation is Desperately Needed

Recent rumblings suggesting that FIFA is likely to examine the process by which Russia and Qatar were, respectively, awarded the 2018 and 2022 World Cups, should be welcomed.

Back when both hosts were announced, I was willing to believe that FIFA had chosen the winners based on a desire to spread the World Cup Finals to new frontiers, an ideal in itself that is not necessarily a bad thing.

When it was first suggested by many, particularly in the England camp, that there were all kinds of shenanigans going on in the lead up to the votes and subsequent announcement, it came across a little as sour grapes, and one was left with a feeling that England were willing to play the same games if it would have resulted in their bid being successful.

Indeed, we saw the English national team travel to Trinidad & Tobago in 2008 for a match that officially was played to celebrate the hosts' centenary. We now know it was probably an attempt to win the vote of not only Jack Warner, but also his entire CONCACAF voting bloc. We also know that this attempt ended in abject failure.

The other stories to emerge seemed so unbelievable as to be impossible. Tales of Paraguayan Nicolas Leoz's entourage asking for a knighthood or for the FA Cup to be named after him seemed completely bizarre. But in the light of the recent revelations about numerous members of the FIFA Executive Committee, it seems that anything is possible.

Russia is not the worst place to hold the World Cup Finals. True, there may be some long distances between venues, though no worse than in the USA in 1994. There is also the issue of alleged widespread corruption and numerous examples of racism. Russia's at times controversial politics, of which their attitude towards Syria is just the latest example, could also be viewed as a negative.

Yet despite these issues, Russia at least ticks many of the boxes. It is a footballing nation with a reasonably well-developed infrastructure, experience in hosting other major events and a country currently booming economically.

But what of Qatar? None of the stadia currently exist, the country has never qualified for the World Cup Finals and homosexual fans could be imprisoned, but most worrying of all is the extreme summer heat and humidity.

The recent Oceania Nations Cup in the Solomon Islands showed how much excessive heat and humidity can negatively affect player performance. And even if, as suggested, Qatar can find a way to cool their stadia, that still leaves hundreds of thousands of fans having to deal with the heat in between matches. Combined with the unavailability of alcohol, it's hard to picture a thriving Fan Zone experience.

Michel Platini, who voted for Qatar, has recently made a habit of saying that the Finals could be played in the winter. Such a plan would surely be hugely disruptive to the major European leagues. Besides, the Qatari bid was for a summer World Cup Finals, and that is what Platini voted for, rather than the USA, Japan, South Korea or my own personal favourite, Australia.

There have been rumours that at least two prominent African FIFA Exco members walked away with huge sums of money after voting for Qatar. These rumours suddenly hold more weight, given the recent findings that Mohamed bin Hammam, who was to all intents and purposes, the impetus behind the Qatari bid, had been using the funds of the Asian Football Confederation like they were his own back account. This came just days after bin Hammam was cleared of wrongdoing in the Caribbean Football Union bribery scandal, not because he was found innocent, but because there was insufficient evidence.

And this is now FIFA's problem. Because of the recent rash of corruption involving major FIFA figures, including the only two FIFA Presidents in the last 34 years, FIFA could run the cleanest, most transparent vote in history, and the football world would still believe that skulduggery was involved. That is what happens when a culture of corruption is allowed to exist, grow and fester without anything being done to curtail it.

Defining the culture and setting ethical expectations is one of the most important roles of any President/CEO, and Sepp Blatter has not only been incompetent in this regard, he has also aided and abetted corruption.

So now we are forced to believe that impropriety was involved in the decision to award at least the 2022 World Cup Finals to Qatar, if not also the 2018 tournament to Russia. And can we also now assume that the reason FIFA decided to award both the 2018 and 2022 hosting rights on the same day was to give the current Exco members twice as much chance to receive bribes?

Kosovo, Gibraltar, Greenland and FIFA Membership

FIFA's acceptance of Kosovo as a football nation that is permitted to play friendly matches against other FIFA member nations has not gone down well in Serbia, which continues to see Kosovo as part of itself.

Kosovo has been unable to join UEFA because of a rule that says that only countries that are recognised by the United Nations are eligible to join UEFA.

And fortunately for Serbia, they have an ally in Russia, which has veto rights in the United Nations and continues to oppose recognition of Kosovo. This, despite the fact that almost all the other European countries are willing to recognise Kosovo.

The United Nations rule is a relatively recent one for UEFA. Not so long ago, the Faroe Islands, technically part of Denmark, was allowed to join UEFA. And of course, every football fan throughout the world knows that, for historical reasons, England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales all compete separately in world football, despite being part of the United Kingdom.

The rule is a classic example of a blanket one that was adopted for a single purpose.

On January 8th, 1997, Gibraltar applied for FIFA membership. The full story can be read on the Gibraltar Football Association's website, but to sum up, FIFA would not allow Gibraltar to join until it was granted UEFA membership. The application ran into continued opposition from Spain, a country that has long resented Gibraltar's existence as a British Overseas Territory, and which also has fears of some of its own territory, such as Catalonia or the Basque region, trying to become independent. (Ironically, Spain shows no inclination to give up either Ceuta or Melilla, it's own exclaves that are located in North Africa, despite requests from Morocco.)

This is all even more inconsistent when you consider that Gibraltar, whose Football Association is actually older than Spain's, is allowed to compete as a nation in many other sports that Spain also plays, such as hockey and rugby.

To appease Spain, the UN rule was rammed through by UEFA. Despite the Court for Arbitration in Sport's ruling that because Gibraltar had applied for membership before the rule change, UEFA still had to allow it to join, numerous obstacles continue to be thrown in Gibraltar's way.

At a recent UEFA vote, only England, Scotland and Wales voted in favour of Gibraltar.

Meanwhile Kosovo finds itself in a situation where because two European nations oppose it's recognition by the United Nations, it cannot become a member of UEFA.

This rule would also prevent other applicants, such as Greenland, from joining UEFA. Greenland is an interesting case, in a similar political situation to both the Faroe Islands, which has been a member of both FIFA and UEFA for over 20 years, and Gibraltar, which has found its way barred by Spain.

Interestingly, and inconsistently, while Greenland has already received assistance in the form of a GOAL Project to help construct an artificial turf field that will allow a huge increase in the number of games that can be played, UEFA has stated that Gibraltar cannot be the recipient of s GOAL Project.

Thus we have Kosovo, recognized by FIFA as a nation that may play other FIFA nations, but not allowed to join UEFA; Greenland, unable to join UEFA but having received FIFA assistance; Gibraltar, desperate to join both UEFA and FIFA but opposed by Spain and a hastily written rule; and the Faroe Islands, fully fledged UEFA and FIFA members.

While Kosovo does not have the blessing of Serbia, it's parent country, to join UEFA, Gibraltar and Greenland do have the blessing of the United Kingdom and Denmark, respectively.

Greenland and Gibraltar may find more luck in applying outside UEFA, but it's not clear that this would be satisfactory to them, being culturally and politically more European in outlook.

Given CONCACAF's willingness to accept numerous non-countries, presumably in an attempt to increase their voting bloc, it's not unreasonable to think that Greenland could become part of CONCACAF.

It seems less likely that the CAF would accept Gibraltar, however.

Looking more closely at UEFA's hastily adopted UN-recognition rule, it seems inconsistent that UEFA has this rule, but other Confederations such as CONCACAF, Oceania and Asia allow non-countries to join.

CONCACAF currently boasts amongst its members a number of British Overseas Territories: Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Montserrat and Turks & Caicos Islands, all of which have the same political status as Gibraltar.

In addition, two other CONCACAF members, Aruba and Curacao, are part of the Kingdom of The Netherlands, while the US Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico are politically part of the United States.

Also politically part of the United States are Guam and Northern Marianas, which are both members of the AFC, and American Samoa, a member of the OFC.

The OFC also counts amongst its members the two French territories of New Caledonia and Tahiti (which will compete in the 2013 Confederations Cup) as well as the Cook Islands, politically still technically part of New Zealand.

Then there is Palestine, not recognized by the United Nations thanks to America's veto rights, but still accepted into the AFC and FIFA.

The United Nations has a list of Non-Self-Governing Territories, which it considers to be a list of countries that are non-decolonized. Of the sixteen territories on the list, ten currently have FIFA membership. This means that in footballing terms, Gibraltar is treated the same as the Falkland Islands, Saint Helena, Western Sahara, Tokelau and Pitcairn, none of which has so far shown any interest in joining FIFA.

It seems reasonable to me that if ten out of ten territories on this list, recognized by the United Nation as countries, albeit non-decolonized ones, that applied for FIFA membership have been granted it, the same outcome should be allowed for Gibraltar.

I do, however, believe that this is where the line should be drawn. I would not permit the likes of Jersey, Guernsey, Isle of Man, Ynys Mon, the Shetland Islands, Rhodes, Gotland or Hawaii to join FIFA, let alone Sealand.

FIFA needs to move quickly to develop a fair and consistent plan that will not only allow serious applicants such as Kosovo, Gibraltar and Greenland (also Zanzibar) to become fully fledged members, thus increasing participation and following their own goal of promoting the game worldwide, but also to bring in recognized countries that have expressed a desire to join, such as Palau, Kiribati and Tuvalu.

There is actually a FIFA Committee in charge of this, but it apparently moves at a snail's pace. Perhaps if someone were to offer a few million in bribes, things would speed up...