FFA still has questions to answer about their 2016 financial statements
Is Michael Brown, CEO of the Asian Cup Organising Committee, to be the fall guy?
Friday’s Daily Telegraph suggests that the $5.027 million for executive pay in FFA’s 2016 financial statements included a bonus of “more than $1m” for Brown. According to the newspaper, the bonus was far more than budgeted because of the stunning success of the Asian Cup, of which Brown was the architect.
Yet, FFA’s previous financial statements show that:
In 2014, total executive pay for FFA was $5.438 million including $900,000 for Asian Cup executives (FFA: $4.538 million);
In 2015, total executive pay for FFA was $8.285 million including $3.8 million for Asian Cup executives (FFA: $4.485 million).
Why did FFA not separate out their Asian Cup payments in 2016 as they did for both income and expenditure in the previous two financial years? Did Brown’s bonus come from Asian Cup funds or from FFA funds? If the latter, why?
Michael Brown with Asian Cup 2015 mascot, Nutmeg.
The paper also quotes FFA’s rationale for Moya Dodd’s payments of $452,272 over three years – rounded down by the newspaper to “more than $400,000”.
The FFA Board determined a few years ago to provide Dodd with compensation for her services as an FFA representative that “provide benefits to FFA and the impact on her professional career of those football commitments.” According to the 2016 Hudson Salary Guide, a partner in a Sydney-based law firm receives $350,000 plus per annum.
However, in total, Dodd received a minimum of $508,636 last financial year from football activities. The newspaper must have forgotten to note that she also received US$300,000 per annum – approximately AUD$395,000 on today’s exchange rate – from FIFA for her services. There are other significant cash and non-cash benefits also.
Former FIFA President Sepp Blatter welcomes Moya Dodd to the FIFA Executive in 2013 with gifts, with the late Julio Grondona of Argentina looking on.
We make our own judgements about whether executive pay is too high; whether Brown’s bonus was overly generous or fair reward in light of the success he engineered; or whether Dodd’s total level of compensation is in line with the football community’s understanding of a volunteer Board ‘giving back’ to the game. We can also point to, and have an opinion about, the opportunity costs to the game of some of those expenditures.
The overriding issue is one of transparency and accountability.
Just like so many of the so-called FIFA reforms, the mere act of doing something – in this case, publishing a financial statement on a website – does not necessarily result in either.
It’s no wonder the A-League clubs, with their sole member status within the FFA structure and no insight into the financial breakdown of FFA revenue and expenditure, are restless.