The other day, a reporter proclaimed how “sources close to Garcia” stated that Qatar won’t be sanctioned. She then proceeded to criticise the fact that FIFA’s Task Force, which deals with the international calendar – and as such also with the mayhem Qatar 22 may or may not cause – was discussing possible dates for the Qatar World Cup “as if nothing had happened”. Drip, drip sarcasm. So, here we go then:
We recommend that the FIFA Ethics Committee file a complaint against the FIFA Ethics Committee (errhm, what?), for having apparently leaked the (presently secret) contents of the FIFA Ethics Committee’s findings. Duh? Get it?
If indeed somebody “close to” the FIFA Ethics Committee did leak information that is at present undisclosed, about an investigation completed by the FIFA Ethics Committee, then the FIFA Ethics Committee must immediately investigate what the FIFA Ethics Committee – or sources close to it – has/have leaked, or how the FIFA Ethics Committee could have allowed sources close to it, to have leaked information of a strictly confidential nature that is part of a report by the same FIFA Ethics Committee which watches over FIFA’s Ethics (as a Committee).
Enter Dyke. Mr Dyke suggested that if FIFA and the FIFA Ethics Committee were feisty enough not to disclose the findings of the FIFA Ethics Committee, then specific journalists should seek to obtain the findings of the Committee nonetheless, so that “the public” (“the public”? really?) might see what nastiness had been committed.
So, Mr Dyke appeared to suggest that every effort should be made by select journalists to get hold of the findings of the FIFA Ethics Committee that must – expressis verbis – not be disclosed by FIFA (who don’t have the report to begin with) nor the FIFA Ethics Committee itself, one way or the other; be that unlawfully perhaps or otherwise (how otherwise?): The FIFA Ethics Committee determined – and its judicial czar further confirmed – that the Garcia Report existed only in four copies and was not going to be released to the public. This being the case, Mr. Dyke’s apparent aiding and abetting (certainly encouraging) a, well, questionable act – namely unlawfully obtaining the Garcia Report (since it cannot be obtained legally) – is an unusual approach for the head of such a well respected national governing body.
Hang on? Is that the head of the English FA (The FA, no less) suggesting that unlawful means must be employed to obtain a report which was not to be made public, only to make sure that it is made public? Confusing isn’t it? No. Not at all. The approach is about as twisted as, errhm, well. Whatever.
No report, why no report and what report if no report?
While everyone is waiting for a verdict that would result from US special investigator Michael Garcia’s report and which he submitted to his colleague, German Judge Eckert a couple of weeks ago – some expected something to happen by November – no such deadline will be met or revelation forthcoming.
Why? Because nobody seems to understand the procedure.
Here’s what’s going down: Mr Garcia finished his multi-million dollar investigation into the bidding process for the 2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cups and submitted his investigative report to Mr Eckert. But THAT, in itself, is in no way a final step before damning verdicts can be thundering down.
The next step is quite different: Judge Eckert will now digest the hundreds of pages submitted to him by Mr Garcia and check them for content, form, procedural adherence to established law and more (and, FIFA being a Swiss Association, Swiss Law will have to prevail over any other Law, although EU Law will also come into play to an extent, given that Swiss Law is – as a result of the Bilateral Treaties between the Swiss and the EU – very much compatible with EU Law). After the Judge has viewed the few hundred pages plus the thousands of attachments, he will come back to Garcia by, say, November or December 2014 and advise him of his further requests (if any), possibly instruct him to dig deeper here and forget stuff there, and finalise what he deems necessary for a verdict.
That additional process is expected to last another few months; those who appear to know, say that it could last well into spring of 2015 before Garcia can submit his final investigative report to the Judge. After receiving the final report – say in Spring 2015 – the Judge will then deliberate about his findings and offer a verdict about individuals whom he finds guilty of wrongdoing.
The Judge’s verdict – or, more precisely, the Report of the Adjudicatory Chamber of the FIFA Ethics Committee – will then be submitted to FIFA’s Executive Committee, which must then rule further, namely what sanctions should be dished out against whom, based on the Judge’s ruling. And whether any further sanctions – for example against bidders – should be considered (which would be the privilege not of the Judge but the FIFA Executive Committee).
Now, that process would probably coincide with the FIFA Congress in May of 2015 – and the (re)election of the FIFA President. The general mayhem that can possibly ensue if the findings were to demand sanctions against countries (bidders) and not “only” individuals, has all of the ingredients of potentially disrupting the FIFA Congress, and even the election or reelection of the FIFA President.
Therefore, observers can expect two scenarios in all likelihood: either the sanctions will affect only individuals, not bidding countries, in which case the sanctions will be handed down, case(s) closed. Or, and if bidders were to be in ethics trouble, the sanctions could be delayed until after the Congress, or indeed not, and in the latter version would create some tumultuous scenes during the Congress – which in return could possibly favour an alternative candidate than the incumbent…. speculation is rife. And we shall be watching with lots of interest.
PS: We hears that the top men disagree about matters of principle. One of them wants the “preliminary” report published, for all to see (so he said in a US paper the other day as well), while the other does absolutely not want a release at this time because it might be prejudicial to those who are named (thus shamed) and may well be found not guilty further down the road. Two concepts of law seem to be colliding here: EU Law and US Law, the latter being punitive by definition and practice, while EU Law (by which the German Judge must be guided in addition to Swiss Law, which is largely harmonised these days with EU law) adheres to the concept of “in dubio pro reo” and does not resort to public and published shaming without due process.
With the frontlines being drawn as they appear to be between two legal luminaries (not to mention the lawyers that inhabit the ExCo and who are in majority totally opposed to early publication, save Prince Ali of Jordan), the only way the present (incomplete) Garcia Report will only see the light of day (i.e. the columns of Murdochia), is if somebody were to leak it to somebody else. Now who would ever do a thing like that? The other option, being discussed by the ExCo legal eagles, is to allow publication but black out all names. Yeah, right, that will help: it will take five minutes tops to identify those very individuals whose names were blacked out. Tops.