FIFA election day on Friday. We look at who Australia should vote for
I contacted FFA today to ask four questions.
Will FFA support the reforms proposed by the Carrard Committee? I wrote about them for Sporting Intelligence.
Which candidate for the FIFA Presidency will receive FFA’s initial vote?
If that candidate is eliminated in early rounds, what is FFA’s order of preference for subsequent votes?
Is there any candidate or candidates FFA would not like to see as FIFA President?
I was advised that FFA’s response on these matters would be handled by the Corporate Affairs Director of Westfield, who is en route to Zurich with the rest of the FFA delegation. A response will be provided once they reach Zurich.
In the meantime, here are the answers I hope they give.
Question 1
FIFA and its US lawyers have been busily briefing anyone who will listen in recent weeks that if the reforms are not passed, FIFA runs the risk of being considered a ‘co-conspirator’ by US and Swiss authorities rather than a ‘victim’. This could lead to dissolution of FIFA as we know it. This would not be the worst thing that could happen.
So while it may be a radical response, the answer to this question should be 'no'.
The reforms do not go far enough. They are the minimum required to get by with the US and Swiss authorities but they won’t bring the systemic and cultural change needed throughout FIFA, its six confederations and 209 football associations. They are full of compromise and concession which merely serves to underline that FIFA is not capable of reforming itself. FIFA needs an independent time-limited administration by way of a FIFA Reform Commission with a mandate to do what is necessary to have a world governing body of the sport in which we can have trust and confidence.
Question 2 and 3
FFA should abstain.
Not one of the candidates represents a break from the past. They all come with baggage – some more so than others. Whoever is elected will not have the whole backing of the football world, not least being fans (who, by the way, don’t even rate a mention in the reform package). None of them will have the mandate or even the desire to lead the type of change that is needed. Having said that, the person who is most in touch with fan culture overall is undoubtedly former FIFA executive, Jerome Champagne.
Question 4
The answer should be ... Shaikh Salman. He is the President of the AFC and, as such, he has been endorsed by the AFC Executive Committee, which includes Moya Dodd.
Let’s give Dodd the benefit of the doubt, and assume she wasn’t there that day and didn’t take part in the endorsement. If she was present, it’s a missed opportunity. On the one hand, Dodd has been vocal on the relatively easy reforms of women’s role in football which form part of the reform package, but on the hand, endorsing Salman would suggest she is not prepared to draw a line in the sand. Some would see this as playing the politics of the game that are necessary for more women’s involvement, but it also precisely underscores the dilemma of FIFA and why we need independent reform: it’s a creature of compromise often at the expense of other principles.
As #NewFIFANow wrote to FIFA’s member associations only last week, Salman is entitled to a presumption of innocence.
However, FIFA should have investigated the allegations that have been swirling around about Shaikh Salman for months, if not years. These include allegations by a former Ethics Committee member, Les Murray, about vote-buying in 2009 but go beyond that to include alleged human rights abuses, alleged misuse of FIFA money, and alleged condoning of match-fixing. If FIFA has investigated them, and not informed anyone (including Murray), they are derelict in not doing so for both Shaikh Salman’s sake and football’s sake. They ought to have dealt with the allegations once and for all.
Salman is considered by bookmakers the favourite to win. If he does, it will prove that FIFA has learned nothing from the lessons of the past nine months.
I’ll update this with the responses from Westfield, I mean FFA, when received.
Update: No response was ever received.
