Sepp Blatter's re-election speech showed just why it's time for him to go
When FIFA president Sepp Blatter was re-elected for a fifth term of office last Friday he made a statement that illustrates perfectly how he fails to understand the issues FIFA need to address to regain credibility.
He said he can’t be blamed for the corruption that has plagued the organisation for decades because he “can’t monitor everyone all the time.”
No-one expects any head of an organisation to be ‘monitoring everyone all the time’. But if Blatter understood governance, he would know that systems need to be in place which provide the appropriate checks and balances and accountability that normal organisations use.
While Blatter has in recent years brought in a series of experts to advise on how to improve accountability for FIFA finances, he has cherry-picked their recommendations and moulded them to suit the ‘FIFA Way’. This allows him to point to a ‘reform agenda’, when there really isn’t one.
As the US Attorney, Loretta Lynch, made clear last week, the ‘FIFA Way’ is not just about the 2018 and 2022 decisions. It’s part of a culture that has been developed and has bloomed under the watch of Sepp Blatter for 34 years - 17 as President and another 17 as General Secretary. But there is no better example of FIFA’s lack of probity around decision-making than the awarding of the 2018 and 2022 World Cup tournaments.
Selection of host nations should be based on four things: the country’s Bid Book, the independent technical assessment, a cost-benefit analysis for the host nation, and an independent security assessment. If this had been the case for 2018 and 2022, it is unlikely that Russia and Qatar would have been selected. Instead, the decisions were taken in the ‘FIFA Way’ – behind closed doors where deals, double-deals and counter-deals are the order of the day.
FIFA’s culture is also one of intimidation and one that rewards silence. Even Prince Ali has said this. The default stance is to attack critics and talk-up conspiracy theories, such as Blatter suggesting the arrests last week were a US/UK ‘plot’. For any ‘ordinary’ person who dares to question or bring attention to the ‘FIFA Way’ publicly – whether a journalist, high profile expert or a whistleblower - there is a price to pay.
Experts such as Professor Mark Pieth and Alexandra Wrage who were hired give advice but have left FIFA frustrated, questioning the level of Blatter’s commitment to transparency and reform.
Even the man hired to investigate the 2018 and 2022 World Cup bids, former Ethics Committee Chairman Michael Garcia, lodged an appeal against the summary report of his own report allegedly written by Judge Hans-Joachim Eckert. The appeal was dismissed by FIFA on the grounds that there was nothing to appeal. Garcia was also criticised by FIFA because he dared to speak with the media (sounds familiar). He eventually resigned in disgust saying that he had lost confidence in FIFA and pointing to the “lack of leadership on these issues” of governance, transparency and cultural change.
The most recent high-level departure from the Ethics Committee is Nicholas Davidson QC from New Zealand. In this interview, he claims that his telecommunications have been interfered with (also sounds familiar); he was expected to wear FIFA uniform on FIFA business; and, as a supposedly independent professional, he objected to the requirement to conduct all communications through the FIFA media office.
Mr Davidson’s resignation raises the question of what the Australian representative on the FIFA Ethics Committee, Alan Sullivan QC, is doing. He is the deputy chairman of the Adjudicatory Chamber of the Ethics Committee. He is one of six people in the world who are known to have the original Garcia report. It would be interesting to know the following from Mr Sullivan.
Does he endorse the summary report that concluded Russia did nothing wrong?
Is he happy with the fact that Russia ‘lost’ their computers and didn’t actually give any testimony to Garcia’s deputy, Cornel Borbely, and his offsider Tim Flynn? (Garcia wasn’t allowed into Russia as the Putin administration has banned him).
Does Mr Sullivan endorse the summary report that concluded Qatar did nothing wrong?
Is he satisfied that because Spain refused to speak with Garcia that they have nothing to hide?
Does he endorse the summary report that states bidders other than Russia and Qatar, and including Australia, had some “problematic conduct”.
As a legal professional who should respect the role of whistleblowers, what does he think of Eckert singling out two witnesses from 75 and traducing them?
Was he surprised at the arrests in Zurich last week?
Is he surprised at the actions of the Swiss Government?
Does he think there will be more arrests?
What is his position on the publication of the Garcia report?
In light of Australia’s principled stand in not voting for Sepp Blatter, does he think he should follow Mr Garcia’s and Mr Davidson’s leads and also resign from the FIFA Ethics Commtitee?
Four years ago on his re-election as President, Blatter promised to put the “ship back on the right course in clear, transparent waters.” Nothing’s changed. On Friday, he promised to “bring the boat back to shore.”
The fact that Blatter is still messing around with boat metaphors, trying to figure out in which direction it should be headed, shows that he is both unwilling and incapable of leading genuine, systemic reform. It’s time to go.
And it’s time for the 73 countries who voted against Blatter, advocacy groups such as #NewFIFANow, supporter groups, politicians, player representatives, sponsors and others to work together to make that happen.