FIFA's inquiry into its World Cup bidding process "descended into chaos" on Thursday as its own investigator launched an appeal over the “erroneous” representation of his 18-month probe, according to Oliver Kay of the LONDON TIMES. FIFA announced that Michael Garcia’s investigation had brought a “degree of closure” to the controversial process that culminated in the vote to stage the 2018 and 2022 World Cups in Russia and Qatar respectively. However, Garcia, the former N.Y. district attorney, responded by declaring that "his findings had been misrepresented in the 42-page summary" that was published by FIFA Adjudicatory Chamber Committee Head Hans-Joachim Eckert. Eckert said that any potential breaches of regulations by the winning Russian and Qatari bids were of “very limited scope,” while the unsuccessful English bid was criticized "for the way it sought to curry favour" with Former FIFA VP Jack Warner (LONDON TIMES, 11/13).
FUELING THE FIRE: In London, Owen Gibson wrote a "furious Garcia said the summary he had published did not reflect his findings." Garcia: "Today's decision by the chairman of the adjudicatory chamber contains numerous materially incomplete and erroneous representations of the facts and conclusions detailed in the investigatory chamber's report." He said that he "would appeal" to the FIFA ethics committee. The incendiary intervention "lays bare the tension" at the heart of FIFA's two-chamber ethics committee. Despite promising anonymity for whistleblowers in order to encourage them to give evidence, Garcia favored publishing as much of his 430-page report as possible -- "with redactions where required." Eckert "insisted on publishing only his interim 42-page summary" (GUARDIAN, 11/13). Also in London, Blitz & Aglionby wrote Eckert said that the main conclusions of the investigatory chamber of the FIFA ethics committee headed by Garcia were: the bidding process was “well-thought, robust and professional” but must be improved; exco members "should be limited to two four-year terms" -- something that was rejected by the 2014 FIFA congress; exco and congress members "should recuse themselves from venue-selection votes when their nation is bidding" and the rotation system for hosting World Cups "should be more transparent" (FINANCIAL TIMES, 11/13). The AP's Graham Dunbar wrote the dispute between Garcia and Eckert "further fueled the turmoil surrounding FIFA's decision to give the next two World Cups to Russia and Qatar." Questions about integrity and validity of the hosting decision "have been raised" ever since the vote by FIFA's exec committee. Eckert's report "seemed to confirm that the 2022 World Cup would definitely be played in Qatar -- though exactly when is still unclear as FIFA seeks an alternative to the desert heat in June and July." Qatar "has also come under scrutiny for its treatment of foreign laborers" (AP, 11/13).
SENSITIVE MATERIAL: In London, Blitz wrote in a separate article FIFA "is thought to be highly sensitive" to what Garcia may have said about the conduct of exec committee members and the organization’s culture. FIFA sponsors, nervous about its negative publicity, have already said that "they expect a thorough investigation." His "dramatic intervention undermines" FIFA's attempt to put the bidding allegations behind it and move on with '18 and '22 tournaments. The Eckert report "also cleared Russia of improper behaviour," although it noted its bid team supplied only a “limited amount of documents.” The Russian team said that "computers it hired for the bid had subsequently been destroyed and it was unable to retrieve email records from Google." The report included criticism of some bidding nations -- including England, "which was accused of violating bidding rules" by trying to “curry favour” with Warner (FT, 11/13). The BBC reported England 2018 COO Simon Johnson described the twist in the saga as "farcical." He said, "Before that statement by Mr. Garcia, I was saying that it's very difficult to have confidence in the conclusions of Mr. Eckert's report and that it looked like a politically motivated whitewash." British MP Clive Efford said, "FIFA has no choice but to publish Michael Garcia's report in full if it expects anyone to believe their claims that there has been no cover-up over allegations of corruption in the World Cup bidding process" (BBC, 11/13). REUTERS' Brian Homewood wrote Eckert's statement praised FIFA President Sepp Blatter for implementing "critical" reforms "including those that
made this inquiry possible." It
concluded that "the line between a bid team's conduct... and improper
conduct is a very fine one. From which point on lobbyism must be
considered as improper conduct is, for example, not always clear" (REUTERS, 11/13).
BOYCE 'IN SHOCK': In London, Ben Rumsby wrote FIFA VP Jim Boyce, Britain’s most senior football official who joined the ExCo after the '10 vote, "was also in shock when informed of the American’s dramatic intervention." Boyce: "This is something that, once again, FIFA could have done without. These are two completely independent people and it seems a shame that they now appear at loggerheads." Boyce "had previously called for much of the Garcia report to be published." He added, “If Michael Garcia, who is a person of the highest integrity, feels that more information needs to be put into the public domain, I would support that fully" (TELEGRAPH, 11/13). Also in London, Charles Sale wrote astonishingly, in the 42-page FIFA report Eckert raps England for a $55,000 sponsorship "but lets Qatar off lightly" for a similar $1.8M one. FA Chair Greg Dyke said, "Questions still need to be answered. If you read that report it says all the bids were assessed. The one that was the highest risk was Qatar and they won, and it doesn't take us any further forward on why they won" (DAILY MAIL, 11/13).
