By J Hutcherson - WASHINGTON, DC (Aug 25, 2011) US Soccer Players -- Former FIFA presidential candidate Mohamed Bin Hammam has responded to FIFA's fuller explanation of why they chose to ban him for life over a votes for bribes scandal centered around Caribbean countries. Before the collective eye roll that will likely greet another column on FIFA politics, it's worth keeping in mind who that serves.
In a statement on his official site on Thursday, Bin Hammam addressed the substantial problem of trying to go through FIFA's internal appeals process. He wrote: After all, the panel from the Appeals Committee is decided by my opponent and in this case, as previously, the judge is the rival. Therefore, I should not exaggerate my hope for a fair decision.
Once again, that's the major problem of what's happened over the last few months. The use of the word 'opponent' tells the story, with the sitting FIFA president allowed to run unopposed in an election held a few days after Bin Hammam was forced out of the race.
Regardless of whether or not you though Bin Hammam was a good candidate to run FIFA, it's the process that still needs examination. That's not just limited to how FIFA's Ethics Committee operates, but the basics of FIFA's election cycle. What happened in broad terms was a disincentive for anyone to challenge a sitting president.
Unfortunately, that's the broader message that was sent by how the Ethics Committee responded to the Bin Hammam charges. They opened the door for the type of critiques that have been directed at FIFA as an organization from seemingly all corners. There was an arrogance both to the Ethics Committee's process and to how it was presented to the public that did not strengthen FIFA's role as world soccer's governing body.
FIFA has done very little to alter that public perception, once again reverting to their standard practice of pushing forward. We've seen that before in earlier scandals and crises, FIFA as an organization expressing to their constituencies and the public that they've got this, handling it internally in a way that might not necessarily be convincing, and then moving right along. As organizational risk response goes, it's worked well enough that they haven't needed an alternative.
After all, FIFA has moved past the presidential election scandal and the lobs thrown at the organization from some of its member nations. It's what they do, and that's why the latest Bin Hammam response is no surprise. As a former FIFA vice-president and executive committee member, none of this is new to him. Simply put, he knew what to expect from the FIFA judiciary process.
Back to Bin Hammam's latest public statement: Based on our experiences, we expect the appeal process and decision to take approximately two (2) months, not because this time is necessarily needed but more due to FIFA’s tactical games and abuse of power, as evident throughout this case.
It's the 'based on our experiences' part that's worth your attention. Anyone involved in FIFA has seen how this works, probably thinking they would never face their organization turning on them. FIFA hasn't changed course in how they've treated Bin Hammam throughout this process. It was ethics committee and disciplinary committee as usual, keeping it firmly within FIFA and showing no hesitation in removing established senior members. Again, it's what they've done in the past and what they'll do if needed in the future.
That's the continued importance of the Bin Hammam case, the potential for FIFA to have to act differently. That's unlikely to happen through the internal appeals process. FIFA overturning a life ban and reinstating Bin Hammam on appeal is contrary to how this organization operates.
Bin Hammam knows this. It's not bluster when he writes: The decisions of the Appeals Committee will not be any better than the Ethics Committee….
There's simply no god reason to expect otherwise. Though it's an offense worthy of suspension for Associations and individuals within FIFA, Bin Hammam's only chance to be heard is to take his case to an outside agency. Namely, the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Should that happen, that's where the real test for FIFA's version of justice will occur.
It's worth paying attention to all the reasons that have been presented for Bin Hammam to leave his grievances within FIFA. His country is hosting a World Cup, it's better for all involved to let this situation end with Bin Hammam exiting FIFA, and so on. That's explicit and implicit encouragement to let FIFA operate however it sees fit. Most of us have seen enough of that.
Supporting Bin Hammam's right to a full appeal that could eventually involve outside agencies is not the same as supporting what supposedly happened during the FIFA presidential election cycle. Confusing that only gives FIFA what they always want. A convenient ending to move forward from while they remain in control.
Comments, questions, solutions to problems that have yet to present themselves. Please, tell me all about it.
