The Sunday News
By Simba Jemwa, Sports Correspondent
WHEN Zimbabwe won the right to host the 2000 Africa Cup of Nations Finals, one of the conditions for the rights to host was Government assurances! The lack of the said assurances resulted in Zimbabwe losing its hosting rights!
And now with the recent actions by the Zimbabwean and Kenyan governments to rid themselves of alleged bungling football authorities, many wonder if FIFA are truly concerned about the development of football especially in Africa where allegations of corruption have become a way of life for lack of a better term.
However, what is evident is that football authorities have become a law unto themselves, saved from punitive national measures by FIFA statutes that prohibit what it calls Government or political interference. That kind of protection has allowed football authorities to become untouchables, as they rule in their own “kingdoms”, but on the flip side, they run to government when they need funding for national teams and when they want to host key regional, continental and international events.
For the most part, FIFA has decided when it wants government or political interference and when it doesn’t. It seems that when funding is needed, Governments are welcome to get involved in football matters. In principle, these governments’ involvement in football issues is at the whim of FIFA, a FIFA which historically will protect its own regardless of whatever chaos they bring to the game.
Today, the issue of government interference in football is subject of very strong debate in Zimbabwe. Last week, the Sports and Recreation Commission, an institution mandated by the laws of Zimbabwe to oversee sport and sports associations suspended the Felton Kamambo-led Zimbabwe football Association. And now Zimbabwe risks being ejected or suspended from all forms of football by FIFA as a consequence of this action.
In Zimbabwe case, the Zifa leadership faces a myriad of allegations but key to the SRC’s decision is the general malaise in administration of the game. When suspending the Zifa leaders, the SRC said the suspension follows evidence of ‘gross incompetence on the part of ZIFA’.
Among the plethora of charges against Zifa, the SRC said the FA was guilty of “mismanagement and lack of accountability in the use of public funds with specific reference to the letter issued to ZIFA on the 3rd of July 2019 where ZIFA was asked to account fully for the use of public funds in the aftermath of the 2019 AFCON campaign.”
The SRC also said: “The SRC is also in receipt of a report of alleged sexual harassment of female referees by key technical staff within ZIFA. Despite several requests for the matter to be decisively dealt with, ZIFA did not give the matter adequate attention in view of its gravity. Whereas the nation has made significant strides in empowering the girl child to be an active participant in sports, incidences of sexual harassment should be conclusively dealt with to enable a conducive environment for participation by all.”
Moreover, key members of the Zifa board has been dragged to court facing a number of charges, which in itself showed that something was not right, though they deserve to be treated as innocent until proven guilty like everyone else.
For all intent and purposes, FIFA’s statutes disabling governments from having input into football administration has resulted in stunted development of sport in Africa. But the hypocrisy of FIFA is that when they have wanted to rid themselves of one of their own, they have been quick to support government efforts to cull corruption.
Case in point: what did FIFA say when authorities went after its former president Sepp Blatter! Or when they went after Brazil’s football and 2014 World Cup head Ricardo Teixeira! Or even when French football icon Michel Platini (then Uefa president) was arrested and charged!
Fundamentally, all three were suspended from all football-related business while their cases were being heard. Guilt or the lack of it thereof is neither here nor there: the mere specter or whiff of corruption was enough to see the trio leave their administrative duties. They had tainted the brand and couldn’t be allowed to stay in office while their cases were being heard or investigated.
FIFA feels that member nations should be free from external interference – in this case, the government. However, the fact that most countries, especially in Africa are dependent on their governments for funding, stadiums and sometimes sponsorship, makes the government believe they have a stake in what happens in their Football Associations and rightly so.
Too, as is the case in Nigeria, some Football Associations are created by Statutes, of Acts of Parliament, and are usually subject to those laws. It then begs the following questions: Should Football Associations be truly independent from their government? Is this clash between FIFA and national governments in the interests of the African game?
Whose law or regulations supersedes the other? These are questions that often arise when the issue of government interference arises as it has in Zimbabwe since the Sports and Recreation Commission suspended the Zimbabwe Football Association leadership.
But what does FIFA consider as government Interference and how does it impact the game especially in Africa? For the most part, there is no precise definition as to what government interference is or could be, but is generally, political interference is seen at FIFA as primarily a result of dissatisfaction with sporting performances or administration as is the case in Zimbabwe and Kenya at the moment. Political interference basically includes legislative acts adopted by parliaments, as well as judicial actions against FAs (Football Associations) or officials.
This therefore means that government interference includes court actions against the Football Association, as well as suspending the Football Association through legislative or executive means.
According to its statutes which are basic requirements for membership, FIFA has the mandate to control association football worldwide, in all aspects. This mandate is delegated to the national associations, to control association football at the national level.
This generally means managing, controlling and developing football as a game and also organisation of the game in general. The associations have the obligation to do it on their own, in an autonomous way, without outside interference from the government or any other parties. In this context, political interference is when a government tries to take direct control.
Article 17 of the FIFA Regulations, provides that: “Each member shall manage its affairs independently and with no influence from third parties.”
Countries that have fallen foul of the non-interference rule of FIFA have either been banned, or suspended for various lengths – some for a few months, while others, years – usually dependent on how long it takes the erring country to rectify its wrong.
But these problems are not unique to Africa. In 2008, FIFA threatened to suspend Spain from Euro 2008 unless the Spanish government allowed the Spanish Football Federation’s elections to proceed. In 2015, the FIFA Executive Committee suspended the Indonesia Football Association (PSSI) due to what FIFA labelled the “take over” of Indonesia’s national football governing body by the Indonesian authorities.
On 9 October 2007, elections had been held in Kuwait – a decision contrary to the decision of the FIFA Executive Committee in May 2007. This led to the recommendation to the FIFA Executive Committee that the Kuwait Football Association be suspended. Kuwait’s Football Federation board resigned days after FIFA suspended the Gulf Arab State.
From the examples cited above, it is obvious that in situations where there is a clash between FIFA Rules and intervention by the government, FIFA would prevail, owing to the fact that it is the governing body of footballing activities in the world and all Member Associations are subject to its laws and regulations.
The effects of a FIFA ban or suspension are far reaching and countries that are banned are unable to participate in FIFA organised tournaments – whether national team matches or international club competition matches. But the questions that FIFA should address are simple yet important to the growth and development of the local game: whose interests do they serve? Why does FIFA want governments’ monies yet doesn’t want them involved in oversight of national associations?-@RealSimbaJemwa
