GENEVA: On Oct 15, the Fifa Council is scheduled to meet. According to Sport Integrity Global Alliance (SIGA) co-founder and global chief executive officer Emanuel Macedo de Medeiros, nobody should expect the divisions that have opened up in world football to disappear around the Council table.
He added that positions have hardened and trust has eroded, possibly beyond repair, between some of those involved.
“There may be no reconciliation. There may not even be a compromise. So be it,” said de Medeiros.
“Fifa does not need artificial unanimity. But surely there is one point on which everyone can agree: world football needs stronger governance, greater transparency and effective independent scrutiny. Indeed, the breakdown of trust makes them more necessary, not less.
“Where trust ends, independent scrutiny must begin.”
He added that while Fifa eventually withdrew the controversial Fifa Forward Enterprise (FFE), acknowledged its mistakes, apologised and announced a review, the world body maintained that everything that had been done complied fully with its regulatory framework.
“Taken together, those two statements raise an unavoidable question: if the rules were followed, were the rules good enough?
“How was a project of such strategic importance conceived and developed? Under what mandate? What were the respective roles of the president, the Council and the administration? What checks and balances operated? Who was consulted and what information was provided?
“These are not accusations. They are legitimate governance questions.”
He added that the review announced by Fifa should be considered seriously and on its merits.
“Nobody who genuinely believes in independent scrutiny should prejudge its quality or conclusions without knowing its mandate, methodology, access to evidence and findings. But an institution facing serious questions about the exercise of its own power cannot reasonably expect institutional assurance alone to settle them.
“The same applies to Fifa’s critics. Those who have already reached conclusions must be prepared to have them tested against the evidence and against objective standards. Independent scrutiny cannot mean scrutiny whose conclusions we accept only when they confirm what we already believe.
“Nor is FFE the only matter requiring answers.”
De Medeiros also pointed out that the circumstances surrounding the disciplinary decision concerning US footballer Folarin Balogun had raised legitimate questions about the independence of sporting decision-making at the Fifa World Cup.
“When the president of the United States publicly acknowledges contacting the Fifa president about the disciplinary situation of a player, and a subsequent decision enables that player to compete, questions inevitably arise,” de Medeiros said.
“That does not establish that improper influence occurred. Nor should anyone presume that it did. But explanations are owed and transparency must prevail.
“If the decision was taken independently, by the competent body, according to the applicable rules and without improper influence, the facts should demonstrate it. An independent sporting decision must not merely be described as independent. Its independence must be demonstrable,” he added.
He added that this is where Oct 15 becomes bigger than FFE or Balogun.
“Good governance exists precisely so that institutions do not have to depend upon personal trust. Presidents change. Council members change. Alliances change. Interests diverge. Disagreements are inevitable.
“But the rules, checks and balances, and lines of accountability must remain,” he added.
