By Andrew Warshaw
The FIFA-appointed lawyer was the first to arrive, briefcase and notes in hand, an hour before the hearing.
Like virtually everyone else in attendance, she had never met Miguel Maduro before but her very presence at committee room number eight at the House of Commons suggested FIFA was worried about how much highly sensitive – even explosive – dirt its former governance guru might dish about the way the organisation was being run under Gianni Infantino.
It was right to be worried.
By any stretch of the imagination, Maduro’s damning testimony to British parliamentarians on Wednesday, given under special privilege meaning he could say whatever he liked, was a watershed moment in Infantino’s presidency.
Here was FIFA’s one-time most important governance and electoral watchdog putting his head above the parapet without fear of retribution or sanction, a rare occurrence in itself. When Maduro revealed that Infantino “basically stopped talking to me” after Russian World Cup supremo Vitaly Mutko was barred from taking up his FIFA Council seat because of conflict of interest, you could almost hear a pin drop, such was the insight into how Infantino’s mind works.
“Probably, he had to choose between protecting the independent bodies or preserving his own presidency,” said Maduro. “I think that, ultimately, he chose to politically survive. I think he made the wrong choice.”
Dynamite stuff. Not surprisingly, presumably having been in contact with the afore-mentioned lawyer, FIFA was quick to respond (unconvincingly) to Maduro’s comments which cast more doubt than ever on the organisation’s commitment to reform and accused Infantino personally of prioritising his own agenda ahead of standards of good governance, highlighted by Maduro being sacked after he allegedly ignored attempts by Infantino to exert “undue influence” on him.
“Exchange between the administration and FIFA’s committees, which in the end all defend FIFA’s interests, are logical and even desirable, so for these exchanges to be portrayed as undue influence is factually incorrect,” said FIFA.
It added that it “has never put the competencies of previous committee members into question and has always respected their decisions. The independence of FIFA’s committees and the success of FIFA’s reform process will only be measured by the decisions taken in the future and not by personal opinions.”
What decisions? Like getting rid of a raft of senior governance personnel and replacing them with yes men and women? Like shredding departments at home and abroad? Like cancelling development initiatives?
Interestingly, Fifa did not address Maduro’s specific revelation that Infantino personally tried to intervene in the decision to block Mutko from remaining as a member of FIFA’s inner sanctum. The fact is that however much FIFA tries to downplay Maduro’s testimony, the damage in terms of Infantino’s hidden agenda has been done, in the process adding considerable credibility to the statement, back in 2016, of Domenico Scala who resigned as head of FIFA’s audit and compliance committee following that infamous Mexico City Congress ruling which overnight gave FIFA carte blanche to sack members of the very independent bodies who have sought to clean up the organisation.
Scala, who was one of the he prime movers in FIFA’s reform process with a key responsibility for monitoring checks and balances, warned in his resignation statement that future investigations could be impeded by officials of independent bodies being dismissed. “Thereby, those bodies are factually deprived of their independence and are in danger of becoming auxiliary agents of those whom they should actually supervise,” Scala wrote.
Talk about prophetic.
Maduro’s evidence also opened up a wider debate: the total lack of on-the-record criticism by other senior football leaders and whether this makes them complicit of the system – and by association Infantino’s own modus operandi. He suggested that there was still very much an old boys’ network at the top of FIFA, self-protective and fearful of meaningful scrutiny. The administration may have distanced itself from Maduro’s claims but as my colleague Paul Nicholson wrote, Maduro’s narrative is one of a regime – still desperately trying to preserve its victim status – that is actively prepared to break its own election rules worldwide to make sure it has its supporters in key positions.
Yet no sooner had Maduro lifted the lid on manipulations of the ethics system than another former governance committee member revealed that he had filed a complaint to the FIFA Ethics committee. Speaking to the New York Times, Joseph Weiler said that he had taken the action in the last few days and that he covered the same ground Maduro had spoken of. The burning question now is whether the two new ethics committee leaders who have kept a low profile since replacing the sacked Cornel Borbely and Hans-Joachim Eckert will have the Cojones to do anything about it.
“I want to believe the ethics committee will not remain indifferent to these issues and there will be serious investigations,” Weiler said. Don’t bank on it. Infantino, remember, has already been cleared once by investigators at a time when the ethics apparatus actually had some teeth so what chance now?
Anyone who thinks Maduro, one-time attorney general of the European Court of Justice, was serving his own interests this week should perhaps reflect on the fact that he was hired by Infantino in the first place to boost FIFA’s image. Indeed, Infantino pointed to Maduro’s election as chairman of the governance committee in May last year as the perfect choice, someone with “impeccable credentials” in terms of the clean-up process following the corruption scandal that brought FIFA to its knees.
Strange how Infantino changed his mind about Maduro after just 10 months. His take, if you remember, was that Maduro and others were removed because FIFA needed to “better reflect the geographic and gender diversity” on its committees. No-one outside FIFA (maybe even inside) really bought that at the time and following Maduro’s ground-breaking testimony, it is an argument that has become even thinner.
A system of rules without the rule of law is how Maduro described FIFA under Infantino. It certainly feels like it has become a lawless society politically.
Andrew Warshaw is chief correspondent of Insideworldfootball and was formerly Sports Editor of the European. Contact him at moc.l1734905353labto1734905353ofdlr1734905353owedi1734905353sni@w1734905353ahsra1734905353w.wer1734905353dna1734905353