FIFA rules on government interference-good or bad?

Brussels Sprout

As of today FIFA have suspended Nigeria from all levels of international football (including their club teams playing internationally). This is a result of perceived interference by the government in the Nigerian football associations activities (in this case the nigerian executive committee had been sacked). FIFA have had a long standing rule which bans any government interference in national football associations. This is to allow them act independently from political interference.

Do you think this is a good rule?

Personally I believe that while it has its merits, one of the major downsides is that football administrators become untouchable as they often tightly control the voting mechanisms within their own associations. This feeds on up the food-chain all the way to the top in FIFA with the most obvious manifestation being the iron grip that Sep Blatter has on world football.

Nobody want to see football associations become political punchbags but is there a better way?

Fr Tod Umptious

I think its too strict a rule.

Govt. interference may be for good reasons also.

If I recall Bosnia were banned a few years ago because the govt became involved in selecting the president of the FA.
Bosnia is a very divided country and the govt needed to get involved in resolving the argument over which ethnic group the head of the FA came from.

losthorizon

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I think its too strict a rule.

Govt. interference may be for good reasons also.

If I recall Bosnia were banned a few years ago because the govt became involved in selecting the president of the FA.
Bosnia is a very divided country and the govt needed to get involved in resolving the argument over which ethnic group the head of the FA came from.

Are you sure thats the full story? Because the Repubic Srpska has a habit of just not getting involved. The Bosnian Govt on the other hand would be more likely to choose a Croat or a Muslim. Bosnia would be a nation that you really do need an FA free from all interference.


Its a very tricky question and answer.

Perhaps Govt interference should not be allowed but the court of arbitration in sport should be as a last resort.

Richard Hillman

The problem is that here (and in most countries I would imagine) public money goes into these organisations but they are not held accountable for how the money is spent. Using the FAI as an example. The FAI is run like a private club with no accountability. The FAI can pretty much do what they like with the cash they get from the public. Personally I would be against public money going into an organisation that is run the way the FAI is unless people can get more of a say on how it is spent. The only people in the FAI that get a say are people who have rose to their position through cronyism.

I only use the FAI as an example but this is prevelent and even worse in most national associations.The national associations are all run like mini-FIFA's. FIFA know that if respectable governments transformed how their national associations worked, then it would threaten the very comfortable status quo.

losthorizon

Richard Hillman wrote: »

The problem is that here (and in most countries I would imagine) public money goes into these organisations but they are not held accountable for how the money is spent. Using the FAI as an example. The FAI is run like a private club with no accountability. The FAI can pretty much do what they like with the cash they get from the public. Personally I would be against public money going into an organisation that is run the way the FAI is unless people can get more of a say on how it is spent. The only people in the FAI that get a say are people who have rose to their position through cronyism.

I only use the FAI as an example but this is prevelent and even worse in most national associations.The national associations are all run like mini-FIFA's. FIFA know that if respectable governments transformed how their national associations worked, then it would threaten the very comfortable status quo.

In fairness the money handed out by the likes of the lotto and the government is very well spent. The problem is not enough money is granted.

The lotto was supposed to be about Arts, Culture and Sport when it was set up. Now its being used by Government for day to day use like Health which should come out of Capital spending.

Sporting Organisations are held accountable and the money is announced where its going before its released.

ArmaniJeanss

As I understand it the Bosnian FA had 3 rotating leaders for demographic reasons, FIFA gave them a few years to bring the structures into line, the BFA missed the deadline, got suspended and quickly sorted it out then. No big deal.

The 'no government interference' rule is fine imo.
Without this rule FAs would almost certainly become part of the Sports Ministry with the leadership roles doled out to the lackeys of whichever party was in government, Leo Varadkar would have it now and probably Mary Lou or Mattie McGrath this time next year.

The rules seem to work for most countries, most of the European FAs in particular seem to be relatively well run and have long term stability.
They run good leagues, have decent coaching structures, maintain national stadiums either solely or in partnership with the clubs/councils etc.
That the FAI is a notable exception is more of a problem inherent to Ireland than an indication that the rule is wrong imo.

marienbad

This is a great rule and I am glad with the speed of FIFA in enforcing it on Nigeria.

But it is not just about government interference , it is also about player protection. Was'nt it Sadam Hussein's son wanted to punish the Iraq players after a bad showing at one tournament and that was not the only example.

We had the Sheik calling off players during a match after dis-agreeing with a ref's decision , and there are other examples.

A vital rule.