Normally a media announcement from the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) would not make much of a blip on the radar, but one from earlier this week did, not least because it should be of interest to Australian football fans. It also lays bare a lack of transparency, accountability and governance process and standards in the Asian Football Confederation (AFC), as well as the challenge for bodies such as CAS which depend on international sporting bodies for their funding.
The case
The CAS statement noted that CAS concluded that the 2019 election for the AFC executive was "subject to improper influence by a third party in a manner contrary to the applicable AFC and FIFA regualtions."
What this means in plain language is that inducements were offered to voters in that election to vote for a 16-person 'ticket' of candidates. The list of candidates was prepared by Sheikh Ahmad Al-Sabah of Kuwait.
Sheikh Ahmad has no official role in football. He was forced to make a quick departure from his football positions once he was apparently identified as co-conspirator #2 in one of the Superseding Indictments of the US Department of Justice, although he denies any wrongdoing.
But he still has plenty of influence in world sport as head of the Olympic Council of Asia, and one of the 103 Members of the International Olympic Committee (IOC). It was in this capacity that he summoned voters to his luxury hotel suite in Kuala Lumpur in April 2019 to let voters know who they should vote for, and to inform his non-preferred candidates to withdraw their candidacy or suffer the consequences.
Amongst the latter group was one of the candidates for the female designated position on the AFC executive, Maryam Mohamed of the Maldives. Ms Mohamed is a former national team player and has been involved with football administration for more than 10 years. She claimed in her complaint to CAS that Sheikh Ahmed offered her inducements to withdraw her candidacy and she felt unsafe and threatened. According to the New York Times, he claimed that he told her that he could find her other positions in football if she withdrew, but if she didn't her career would be finished.
She appealed to CAS on two counts. First, on the basis that the AFC Electoral Committee failed to investigate a discrimination complaint made by her on the conduct of the election. Second, on the basis that the AFC Disciplinary Committee failed to investigate her claims of inducements made by Sheikh Ahmed resulting in a denial of justice.
The CAS media release (which is here) makes it clear that they agree with both complaints made by Ms Mohamed.
However, despite finding that "undue influence" was exerted on the election of the AFC executive, CAS did not agree to Ms Mohamed's request that the election be declared void and conducted again. This begs the question just how far someone is able to go for CAS to declare an election null and void. If evidence of 'inducements' is not enough, then what is?
CAS stated that the offer of inducements had no impact because, specifically, Ms Mohamed did not withdraw her candidacy. More power to Maryam Mohamed.
Australian connection
But the reality of Sheikh Ahmad's ticket of preferred candidates - all of whom were elected, including the Football Australia Chairman, Chris Nikou - raises the prospect that Maryam Mohamed may not be the only one offered an inducement.
Further, Ms Mohamed lost her position on the AFC Women's Committee, just as she said Sheikh Ahmad told her she would.
When I asked Nikou whether he was aware he was on Sheikh Ahmad's list, he said he knew nothing about it. While that may be the case, he did not see an issue with it either which is more of a concern.
CAS's funders
The failure of CAS to impose the next logical and fair step consequent to their deliberations on Ms Mohamed's case - of voiding the election - also leaves the perception that their funders, the major international sporting organisations, have influence over CAS deliberations.
This is not just an issue for CAS, but for organisations such as WADA also which have regularly had their independence questioned because of their funding sources.
One solution is an independent global sports anti-corruption body that is not funded by sport - or at least not funded in the majority by sport - which oversees such matters independently and consistently for the benefit of sport, and those who love and play it, rather than those at the top of world sport bodies who have sequestered it as something they own and control.
